one williams and "washington post" columnist. for more information click on the book fair's tab on our web site, booktv.org. >> and now i'm very pleased to introduce tonight's speaker. adam cohen is a "new york times" best are-selling author and lecturer yale law school. he was a senior writer for "time magazine" and had a weekly law column. before entering journalism he was an education reform mother and staff attorney for the

american civil liberties union agreement what of harvard law school, he was president of volume 100 of the harvard law review some previous -- his latest book chronicles the supreme court's decision in 1927 to allow virginia to sterilize a young woman for eugenic reasons. it is called a book that takes to us a rarely remembered part heist. cohen's narrative of the that's enshined the practices is a page-turner, and the story it tells is deeply, almost physically, infuriating. we're very please to bring the conversation to harvard book store testimony please join me in welcoming adam cohen. [applause] >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here. i'd like to thank harvard book

store for hosting a wonderful book store i used to spend a lot of time in when i was here in a previous life. and thank you all for turning out, including some old friends here. i had a book party in new york recently, and the invitation that went out automatically, as these things are now, said at the top "imbeciles" book party and some of any friends own. i think this was build at imbecile's book talk. we're halfway between my freshman dorm and the college newspaper and it feels great to be back. so in 1927, the supreme court was asked to decide a simple question. should virginia be allowed to sterilize carrie buck, 20-year-old inmate of the state

colonial for epileptics who war declared the be feeble minded in an 8-1 written by oliver wendell holme, no part of the cation. >> equal protection, protected carrie buck from below stealized against her will. the court strongly endorsed the eugenics movement and issued a clarion call to the nation to all-starize more unfit people. justice holmes wrote the nation had to sterile iowa those show sap the strength of the state. he lee cleared it is bet for all the world if instead of waiting to execution degenerate offspring for crime or let them starve, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. then holme went on to include in the doing one of the most brutal aforrisms. holmes, the the hard educated,

said of carrie buck, he mother and young daughter, three generations of imbeciles are enough. when legal scholars rank the supreme court's worst decisions the competition is considerable. there was the dred scott case in which the court rule an enslaved man had no right to sue in court for this freedom. and there was thecourt upheld internment of japanese americans during world war ii. always be differences of opinions over which of these rulings should be on a list of the worst decisions and how they should be ranked but there can be no doubt this could be in its place. not 0 only was carrie bach sterilized against her will but 70,000 americans were sterilized. men of the victims were perfectly normal, mentally and physically and desperately wanted to have children. buck vs. bells reachedaround the united states inch nazi party,

on the flies germany, used america for a model for it's ostealization program and the supreme court ruling -- the german courts ordered 357,000. sterilizes and nazis responsible for sterilizations cited buck versus bell in their defense. while many of the court's worst decisions part of american history, buck vwell is not bell remembered in law school it is rarely discussed or mentioned only in passing. the leading american constitutional law treatise which weighs in at 1,700 page keys votes half a center and a footnote to the case. i'd like to talk about buck v bell, a that's became more interesting is a learned about it and i want to offer thought why it remains portion and then open this up and get a conversation going the united states in the 19 to 20s was caught up in mania. the drive to use newly discovered hereditary signs.

modern -- 'the united states suddenly had in enemy, bad germ peninsulas simple -- peninsulas peninsulas -- plasma and those who carried it. america's leading citizens led the charge to save humanity. john d. rockefeller, jr. alex sir graham bell, and former president theodore roosevelt who took the to the pages of the national magazine to seines the up fit must be forbidden to leave offspring. organizations with names like the committee to study and report on the best practical means of caughting off the defective jean plasma in the -- women's clubs invite lecturers to speak on the subject of arranging eugene nick marriages, clergymen come speeded in national contests on topics like

religion and jew generallics does the church have any honest for improving human stock. magazines explained the concept to the public. the inspiring and wonderful message of the new her ready. -- conferences were held. the american museum of natural history in new york hosted the second international eugenics conference, truly terrible gathering and the u.s. state department sent out invitations. universities were quick to embrace eugenics and give it their bill almost talk to imprimatur. it was taught 300 universes and colleges, including here at harvard, columbia, berkeley, and cornell, the driving force was the collective fears of the classes about a managing america. record levels of immigration were transforming the nation's

ethnic and religious makeup and with increased industrialization and urbanization, community and family ties were fraying and the anxieties were expressed in the forms about fears of the ungets. eugene nicks offer one solution for the threat from without and one for the danger from within. the answer to foreign threat was new immigration laws to limit nonnorthern europeans in the country. the eugenics claim they'd had high number of defects degrading america's gene pool. other things they claimed that between 40% and 50% of jewish immigrants were memory defective. congress held hearings in which various nationalities were explained. act only the arguments congress documented the immigration act of 1924 which invited in more immigrants from northern europe and closed the door to southern and eastern europeans. the harm that disimmigration law

did was immense. most of all to the jews of eastern europe who would soon be trying to flee nazi germis ideas ideal regime and would find the door shut in the 1940s at to frank wrote for visas for his wife and daughter, margo and ann, but was turned down because of the 1924 act. so when we think about ann frank it's true she died because of the nazis thought jews were racially inferior and she also died there because the u.s. come believed the same thing in addition to immigration limits, to deal with the external threat, eugenicists -- they began in coat in 1895, with laws prohibiting various kinds on people deemed to be heredityial unfit to marry. next they promoted segregation, as they called it, placed, quote, defective people in state

institutions temperature their reproductive years to prevent tremendous from passing their flaws on to a new generation, but holding that many people in institutions for so long was expensive. finally they turned to sterilization which could be cared out on mass scale. starting in indiana states adopted legislation authorizings forced sterileeyation of people judge to having hereditary defects. their greatest target was the feeble minded, a loose designation that included people who were mentally challenged. women considered to be excessively interested in sex and other category odd of individuals who offended the middle class sense instants of judges and social workers. fears of the tide of feeble mindeds in rose to panic levels and they argued that it unlies

al of our social problems including crime, poverty, and prostitution. the eugenic sterilizeways mom's moe prominent leader insist today remove -- 15 million people would have to undergo the knife. virginia was late to adopt eugenic sterilization, it waited until 1924, 17 years after indiana. what put it in the center of the legal battles when virginia hospitals decided they didn't want to sterilize anyone until the lieu was tested in the courts awful the way up to the supreme court. they decided to create a test case. it was carrie buck's misforeign to be the wrong place at the wrong time. i it as sad and-under fewer rating story. she was rayed in offered by a single mother and taken in by a foster family. there was nothing long with her physically or mentally but she was raped she became pregnant she was shipped i shift up a to

the state clonal for epileptics and arrived just when the colony's superintendent was looking forren an inmate to put the center of his test case. carrie had the personal attributes they were looking for, she was designated teen. mined and as a woman who had given birth out of wedlock she embodiesed the eugene nick nightmare of people reproducing rapidly and flooding the nation with so call defectives. carrie had the sort of family. herma was a colony inmate who had been digsed feeble minds, although likely she was not, and she had other relatives in the institution which could help the state establish a hereditary pattern. there was more to the story but no one was interested hearing it elm has was feeble minded does spite the stayses unreliable intelligence testing heifer school records which the colony was not interested in, reveal her to be of perfectly normal intelligence and she had never had a seizure and never would the colony held a hearing where she should be sterileees, a proceeding heavily stacked again her, approval she should be and

it was this order that was appeal through the virginia courts up to the u.s. supreme court. nations rely on civil society, public and private institutions, devoted to higher values to promote truth and justice and keep them on the right path. four of the nation's most respected professions were involved in carrie buck's case, medicine, academia, law, and the judiciary, in the form of four powerful men. of of them was on the wrong side, the man selected care where i to be plated hone was a physician who served as superintendent of the colony for epileptics and feeble mind and one of the main people who lobbied the log tour to pass the sterilization law. the his campaign he had much of the medical profession behind him. across the countries doctors took a leading role in promoting eugenics and sterilization, medical journals were filled with articles advocating sterilization with titles like race suicide for social

parasites. the head of the eugene us office in new york was the scientist who gave expert opinion that the virginia law should be upset and carrie should be stabilized. he was the most prominent advocate for eugenic sterilization and drafted the model law the states were using. laughlin, who had a doctorate in biology from prince ten was a representative of his academic peers. many of the nation's most prominent academic scientists strongly supported eugenics and sterilization, thester of this academic support was right here at harvard university. president charles william elliott addressed a 1912 meeting of the harvard club of san francisco, advocating for racial purity. he wrote an article supporting sterilizeddize and was vice president of the first eugenics conference in london in 1912, and two leading hard vair geneticists were advocates for eugenics of thirdly, a lawyer

who drafted the virginia sterilization law went on to defend any the courts up to the supreme court. lawyers also offered strong support for eugenics, among the influential voices praising connecticut's first in the nation law was the president of the american bar association, who declared eugene nick marriage laws necessary to protect, quote, future generations from the evil operation of the laws. finally, it was the great oliver wendell holmes who had the last word on carrie's fate and who with his broad -- link hid prestige to the sterilization cause. holme did not find enjoyment but would later say that upholding the law and the sterilization had given him real pleasure. of of all the profession is it was the jew dish contrary's role the most disappoint, the supreme court had some of the leading of american law, the chief justice,

william taft, who was president, and lewis brandeis, and there was holmes, former harvard law professor and the most respected justice in supreme court history. when the case reached the nine great men they got the facts wrong, the legal analysis was shoddy and the vote was not close. those who air brushed buck v bell from history would offer the simple explanation, it is an anomaly. the supreme court, they would say, was brief live caught up in eugenics because short lived one-time mistake the issues it raises are ones the nation long ago put behind it. but this argument has serious flaws. first, unlike so many of the courts' worst rulings buck v. bell has never been overruled in ha 1942 case thecourt struck down on oklahoma law proceeding for sterilization of certain criminals but on very narrow grounds. the court expressly chose not to

overturn or limit buck v intel after the ruling states continued to sterilize thousands of people. at recently as 2001 a u.s. supreme court of appeals in missouri, one step below the supreme court, cited buck v. bell in rule thong case of a mildly retarded woman order bid the state to be sterilized. second, there's nothing outdated about the case's subject matter in 1938 owners board of eugenics was still functioning and performed the last sterilization in 1981. in 2014, investigative reporters discovered that 150 female prisoners in kaz had been sterilized between 2006 and 2010, not always with the woman's consent, and other examples of eugene nick sterilization done unofficially emerged with disturb regularity. more broadly, the 21st century below hailed as the century of biology arranges era that experts say will be defined be the new biology of genomic research. scientists are now able to edit

human embryos paving the way for what the brees dubbed designer babies. this wig make it easier for the state to impress eugenics. the deepest subject us a timeless one, power, and how those who have it use it against those who do not. carrie was at the bottom of the nation's economic and social hierarchy. in her plea to the court she is asking for protection from powerful people and institutions that threaten to do her harm. thought the history that is no a good position to be. the ancient law that french archaeologists uncovered in 1902 including 282 distinct laws covering liability for neglect acts and the presumption of innocence. the code had an eloquent statement of its own purpose. to bring about the rule of righteousness on the land so the strong should not harm the weak. that simple ideal remains more than 3,500 years later, the

law's highest calling but is a vision the american legal system has all too often failed to live up to. dred scott, homer, fred korematsu, all weaker parties justly harmed by stronger ones who came to supreme court seeking justice inch each case the court sided with the strong and american law's tendency to favor the powerful could be one of its defining features inch the end this is most troubling thing about buck v. bell. presented the course with with a stark choice between the ideal and the opposite. the ancient principle of justice teaches the purpose of law ties ensure the strong do not harm the weekful the ueugenicsists said was the law's duty to help. the supreme court did not merely side with the strong, it enthusiastically urged them on, insisting it would be better for all the world if society's strongest members finished off people like carrie once and for all. even the babylonians in other

words that helping the strong to obliterate the weak is the very opposite of justice. [applause] >> this made me feel uncoverrable but a i'm an on -- obstetrician for 40 years and have done abortions and one of the main reason he wad done abortionses was to eradicate month mongooid. and the weak shouldn't be hurt by the strong. i feel uncomfortable about what i might have done.

>> there's a plot of nuance here and you could say one level of ugenerallics that is very disturbing is the kind that carrie buck experienced where the state imposed it on her as a potential parent. the stayed made the decision she could not reproduce. and that is a very high level. sounds like maybe you're talking about a different case where the parents have made the decision. >> a very common thing. in the sense that jew -- eugenics in termination of pregnancy was practice. >> but with the consent of the parent. >> with the consent of the parent but not the fetus. >> right. i'm just distinguishing when those two case but this still puts us in an area of eugene nicks some people may not feel comfort able and if wonder if other people have thoughts about it.

>> there's been a number of different journalists recently who have been talking about the rise of mesh authoritarianism, and i'm just wondering how you kind of view this conversation within the current movement of donald trump and the direction towards basically people feeling socially threatened as far as the mores of our society and he movement in that area and how that makes them react in a very protectionist and overbearingly author tarynan way towards those who are not in power. >> great point. and we could definitely draw a lot of parallels win the 1920s and today. it was time of great transition, also, a item of very high levels of immigration. the eugenicists were very scared of new immigrants who often were of a different religion and looked different, and a lot of the people who were most active in eugenic movement were the

middle clarks upper clarks white president standses who felt there world was slipping away from them and you can see eugenics a form of authoritarianism. another parallel, in the book i talk about oliver wendell holmes and the degree to which he had an authoritarian upbringing and then judicial philosophy. he was a member of the boston class near boston and his father, dr. ol' very wendell holmes, sr., the dean of harvard medical school, coined the phrase and whats interventionly saying that the, quote, old and higher familieses of boston were a cast --cast, like the braman caste in yeah. that should was hole knowledge was brought up to think his people were all boston braman

families. holmes' first relative, ancest or, tapedded harvard in the 1600s and raised to believe his people were better, and that he was at the top of a hire, a kerr and when carrie buck come thursday the supreme court and is from the lowest social class in the south, to the lowest white social class, poor, white, sometimes called trash, but obviously that's not an acceptable way to refer to them but that low social economic class of whites, that's who carrie buck's people are and when holmes looks at that he sees the very bottom of the hierarchy and thinks it should be obliterated. it's all about power and control. i think we see more of it when people are threatened and there's a reason the 1920s speak to 2016. quaker. >> have some states like north carolina done rainations d.

repairations. >> yes. the supreme court has not said that this holding, which says that the state has the power to sterilize people for eugenic reasons and that doesn't present constitutional problem as long is a there's a due process hearing. that legal authority is still there. so the concern would be what if -- who knows what direction our country is going into with the next president and the next congress. if with get to a point in a few years where either congress or the states begin to think about eugenics, the fault law from the supreme court is still buck versus bell authorizing it so that's the concern. >> in terms of these events, the culture was saturated with eugenics and eugenicists, however when the supreme court makes rulings today, of course, as we know with citizens united and other rulings, there's a lot of reaction from the population, from the press.

was there any reaction to this ruling when oliver wendell holmes made it? >> there was and you're right to say eugenics permeated the culture, and the reaction was largely positive, and as i said, thought leaders, as the president of harvard university, was saying that eugenics was a good thing. ther to do said it was -- theodore roosevelt said it was a good thing and the press was in that camp as well. it's interesting to read articles before 1927, happy reports about eugenic activities and great this new group has risen up and is counseling people on who to marry and teach about eugenics the press coverage was very positive leading up to buck v. bell and then the reaction was largely positive. there were some editorials and articles that were more skeptical, but overall whelmingly positive. the one group that was opposed to eugenics all the way through was the catholic church, and they are really in many ways the heros of the story.

when legislatures met to consider eugenic sterilization laws, progressives were very troubled to realize that the sort of people who are going to lobby for it were literally the league of women voters, very big supporter, and the people that opposed it were often priests and nuns and people active in the catholic church, and it was for a couple of reasons. one is the concern about preproduction and just as many catholics oppose abortion, they were concerned about that. but also the catholic view was that people should be evaluated on their soul and on their spirit, and the catholic church wasn't comfortable with these eugenic movement that said we're going to look at these individual traits and decide whether people are fit or not fit, worthy or not worthy. so those were the -- it was the catholic publications that also spoke out against the ruling when it came down. so, i think we have to credit the role of the church there as being right on something when

the rest of the country was wrong. >> in terms of both a comment and question, mention the catholic church, but as far as eugenics could be look at in terms of what happened in terms of slavery, the catholic church permitting slavery because blacks had no soul and also look at france as one case of the father of the eugenic movement that led the united states back to germany and then back to the u.s. again, we could look at what happened to puerto rican woman who were sterilized balls of immigration in 1960s, experiments and so forth. recent case, haitian immigrants, came to miami, were men who bred

and women could not reproduce because once you have a child born in the u.s., automatically you get citizenship. so my question is in terms of every society has a form of technology of control and the economy of civilizationization so what extent, the moral fabric of the law is concerned, to what extent do we allow the technology of control for the sake of security. >> i think that's a very good point. if you allow me i want to say a bit about race. you're absolutely right that in more recent years, you generallics has been used a lot against african-americans and latinos and others, but what was really so perverse about eugenics in carrie buck's time, some people are surprised to learn that carrie buck was white, and the reason she was being sterilized was in virginia, at the time that the

very same day that virginia adopted it's sterilization law it accommodated a second law which raised the penalties for interracial marriage, interracial sex and accommodated the one drop of blood rule. to really put a strong wall between black and white races, and the the eugenists were so racist they had given up on the black race. they did not think it was worth trying to uplift the black race, did not think it was possible. so at that tie the movement was about lifting up the white race and make sure the black race did not intermingle:...

single out certain groups. jewish people, people from southern european countries, the data that they were looking at, patterns, behavior, social patterns. >> i think there's a bit of chicken and egg thing. they created data to show that they were inferior. the visceral hatred of jews, italians, asians, a very popular writer at the time were book at the time which

anticipated a lot of nazi ideas about arianism. so madison grant, and upper-class new yorker he went to columbia law school of the way he spoke about posters walking down the street in new york and a polish jewish clothing trying to marry american women, so much hatred that it created data. that was very interesting how they chose individual groups of regular old stock americans. they were categories, the disabled, the deaf, blind. the real villains of my book remnant eugenics records office the trip a lot of the categories in the model statutes that states used.

when interesting aspect of this was included the people who should not be allowed to reproduce because they were unworthy. couple of pics, and it turns out terry laughlin was epileptic. it is unclear exactly when he knew he was epileptic. but reading that one does wonder, so much of hatred starts with self-hatred, he felt that he was and even when he had his 1st seizures and everyone knew he was epileptic, he never argued to remove epileptics from the people who could not reproduce. >> have any role. >> claims the term, a half dozen of dollars. he was really thinking on in

the moment right after dollars coming up this they're is a revolution and he talked about how we can see how nature works itself out through survival of the fittest in the natural process, but he argued that was half cousin was writing about, eugenics could speed up and do more humanely than fight it out over years and years and years, do the right choosing and design of the fittest will survive. but you know, dollar himself was not and wrote some rather eloquent passages when he said that we could choose the people who we think of the weakest, but if we do that and obliterated them we would also be obliterating our own humanity. darwin was a big enough and to see that this is not how

his idea should be used. >> the future a little bit in terms of genetics and prenatal testing without a sense of what love my be in the coming together of strange bedfellows in terms of liberal disability right activists and women's conservatives, antiabortionists. >> sure.. >> sure. it is a great question, and there are so many aspects, will be able to address the mall. one thing i can focus on right now, in china have succeeded in editing the human embryo. that is the 1st creation of what they call designer babies where they can go in and edit out jeans,

rearrange them and create a baby that has been genetically designed. there is a big, big discussion going on internationally about whether we should go out. a lot of people are saying doctor frankenstein. put this is going to happen. england they just proved a researcher there can you editing of a human embryo. so that we have the question of how we feel about this? in the field it is interesting. there was a hearing recently about what to do ethically. one of the people testifying was a mother whose baby had died from a genetically carry disease, and she was weeping and said just do it because if she had been able to edit out the genes that

he would have lived. and in lived. and in this discussion you see some of the people who are most in favor of people who themselves carry these genetic markers. as a scientist in washington his mother contracted a terrible genetic disease committee would like his children not to.to. he is saying we should allow this. becomes interesting twist where it is the people who are genetically unfit for saying let us use this eugenic procedure to make ourselves stronger. so i actually think that in many ways we may want to flips more thinking about eugenics and see that when we can start editing things it will be a way to help.

>> so women thought to be a good thing. center possibly for life. read the colony after she was sterilized. sad places. >> heard about prisons where

they tested medication on people and the inmates were not aware. how much of a voice did she have? she completely informed what is going on? a lawyer is able to argue on our behalf? >> the whole thing. it is interesting. a reporter asked me the talk. i wish i knew every stage in the process. she was represent. we don't know what she knew. the guardian wasn't doing much to protector. there was one point in line where this all -- the learner was trying to sterilizer the guardian that

is actually looking for people trying to sterilize and then when they go up further, that is required. a lawyer they get her have been chairman of the board of the colony, friends with the letters on the other side them wonder sterilize. wrote some terrible briefs. you realize, this last page and a half, he should be. i think at some point she didn't realize was happening. more tragic story, her sister after the 1927, she is not told about always done there. i tell her she is having an appendectomy or something like that. many years later the 1st

finds out and she and her husband were weeping say we spend our whole lives trying to pregnant. the dr. mentioned they had a scar. and this was not uncommon. they don't have oral histories and journals. we don't know who found out when. many of did not know. >> so the culture of medicine, doctor so patience what to do in patients

complied with the doctors orders. when does this informed consent become something in the practice of medicine? understand what is being done to them. >> just starting around the sarah and there was a place in new york state where the court of appeals rules very strongly that patients had a right to be informed and operating was just beginning to happen. they were worried that it could be in a position. it was really after they became much more common. a robust dr. at the time. it was being flouted.

>> take a percentage. >> i had not included many examples of that. i'm sure was going on. they haveall kinds of the various ways of dealing with everything. pregnant when she was ordered to be sent with the con epileptics and feebleminded. we don't accept any pregnant women or children. they put her in with some of the family until she gives birth. zero, they decide to give it to the foster family and then they don't let her come back and join them later. so i think babies are being passed around and all kinds of things were worked out.

i'm sure it was all done then turned away. >> the vote was eight to one. >> a great question. the one justice who voted against was the one conservative member of the court. then there were some catholic journalists written about the silence of the dissent. as hard to know. very cranky. he just subjected to government activities of various times. but he was also a very religious catholic. the thought is that he probably objected on moral grounds but justin say. we really wonder what all these justices were thinking , what was louis

brandeis thinking? he was known as the people's attorney, the great champion of the dispossessed. he just signs on. early on this process i was excited to learn and written a 900 page biography. and once again we see the theme. mentioned in the footnote. so much about him and in the footnote saying of course it was the majority. as far as i can tell brandeis had said that sometimes he just voted with the majority to be convivial. unanimity or close unanimity.

just let taft twist his arm. amazing that no one has explained that. there are a lot of silences in this case which maybe will never before then. start ?-question-mark there? >> does it make a connection? >> the biggest state environmental institution. 1981, the sterilization. >> it just kind of doesn't get that far in the future. the willowbrook cases something, i am from new york.

you know that we all wrestle with this because what was going on in willowbrook when it was open felt like the 1920s, the way in which the inmates were horribly mistreated, but the aclu to its credit, the critique now is that no other system was put in place. do we have a humane system for taking care of folks? but i guess in part i was not aware, the larger problem of how we deal with people who arefor developmentally disabled in every way is just huge. i think not enough attention is given to it as a policy matter. we should be learning and thinking more about it.

>> what happened to the daughter and whether sheriff found out. >> well, what's that be part of it. and i say, there are no heroes and no happy part. it is a good lead-in. died at the age of six. and right before the initial trial sent an expert from the unix experts office to examine infant. he was able to swear that he was mentally defective because compared to the other baby is in the smile

lesser react differently. that was enough. she was recorded. she was a very bright and perfectly normal child. hundreds of loans my book being fostered. committed because she is been great for your nephew and then takes her baby. when they go to talk to her she does say there was nothing wrong with me and she was fine. so it sadness every direction you look. >> language from writers, beautiful. editors. gene manipulation comanche

hacking, the outcomes of wishful thinking about gene editing. >> i think that's a great question. there going to have to decide. maybe we should push back against that are maybe we shouldn't. if you want your genes edited maybe it is like getting. one other way language figures is three generations of imbeciles are not. there are a million things wrong with this decision. but one rather pedantic point of bothers me is there were actually three very different categories of mental defect back then. idiots, imbeciles, and morons.

i found a pamphlet from the us department of labor that had a nice little chart. kerry back in her mother who were probably just perfectly normal have been labeled morons. it is not a great category, but it is one notch above imbeciles. in addition to everything else, he demotes the wish the record make clear mid-level. but they were not imbeciles. so great at the grimmest and wordsmith. one reason i use the word in the sofa the title, there are several including the bigger question of who are the imbeciles, not the people being sterilized, but also it is just such a resident word. one thing i love our

publisher did, they sent me a picture of the cover they came up with for the book. and what they did, they turned the word and the salt into a dictionary definition and i thought that was so right because it is releasing let's interrogate the word imbecile. that kind of nomenclature is everywhere. part of the bag of tricks and is used for malignant purposes. >> the way the codes in the genetics are, the industry. >> as a journalist, any

journalist is out to crush their souls. that's terrible. they take a beautiful thing you wrote. it's in the bible. >> reminded me about what was done. they certainly wanted to get rid of them. they chose a more humane way >> again, i think one other depressing part of this is how we see the same folks over and over again. we treated african-americans very similar to how

populations were treated other places. we were doing what they were about to do. we had designated aryans is a superior. the line between american and nazi germany, the same thing with australia and everywhere. there are only so many different ways. >> would think that although one palm's legacy, in addition to the amazing and

told the life and times i have been black reputation. >> it's a great question. very organized puerto rico operation. an article called the house the protocols. they were great things about comeau walter whitman, leading journalistic commentator at the time was part of the group. it's amazing press.

volunteered to fight in the civil war. we hear their relics. they don't here so this terrible decisions. he wrote aa decision rejecting an attempt by blacks november to vote i was so terrible and not only stop these that it was being an arbitrage around and ask for generations. so many terrible things. he is well regarded by his alma mater. many portraits everywhere you look. someone asked me what my goals were with this book. i did say one thing i would like to do, pulling him down off of his pedestal.

asked that question. i think that's it. [applause] >> thank you all again for coming. the book is for sale. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> when i tune in on the weekends usually is author staring at new releases. >> nonfiction authors on book tv is the best

television for serious readers. >> a longer conversation delve into their subjects. >> book tv weekends, they bring you author after author after author. fascinating people. >> i love book tv, and i have a c-span fan. >> here is a look at some books being published this week.

>> i am so pleased to welcome matthew to discuss is important new book evicted which is just out and already generating the role that eviction place in creating a downward spiral for those already on the economic edge. the devastating effects which had women and children the hardest. to research this book desmond immersed himself and profiles his characters with such vividness in depth that the book at times reads like a novel. the reviews of all been

outstanding. and comparisons have been drawn to behind the beautiful forever. the new york times has called this an extensively researched, vividly realized and above all of ignorable book adding that after evicted it will no longer be possible to have a serious discussion about poverty that having a serious discussion about housing. desmond is the winner of the 2015 macarthur genius grant them author of several other books including on the fire line. he is currently the john l loeb associate professor of social sciences at harvard and the codirector of the justice and poverty project. please help me welcome matthew stettin. [applause]