The Camouflagingof Eugenicistsas Eugenicism’s Opponents 85Someof Ward’s opinionsabouteugenicschangedovertime.But on intothe last yearof
his life,he persistedin a paperinThe AmericanJournalof Sociologythatpersonsbelea-
gueredby mentalillnessor hereditarydiseasesin theirfamiliesshouldbe sterilized
againsttheirwill.^27 In thatverysamepaper,Wardveryexplicitlyappliedthe word
eugenicsto describehis ownposition.“Arewe to acceptthatmodernscientificfatalism
knownaslaissezfaire?”, thatpaperrhetoricallyprobed.Obviously,Ward’s answerwas
no. Thepapercontinuedthat,giventhat“the endandaimof the eugenicistscannotbe
reproached,it is thereforea questionof methodratherthanof principle.”^28 Onewonders
ifthisis whatArthurEkirchmeantwhenhe cheeredthatWard“tookan optimisticview
of the lessonsto be drawnfromthe naturalworld.”^29 Recall,also,thatCarlDegler(1)
pronouncesWardto be one whorejectedeveryformof socialinequality,and(2) insists
that eugenicsis entirelyaboutinequality,“the verystock-in-tradeof eugenics.” The inevi-
tabledeductiveconclusionto drawfromDegler’s claimsis that,followingin the logicof
his supposedlyegalitarianpremises,Wardrejectedeugenics.Notethatin applyingthe
eugenicslabelto himself,WarddirectlycontradictsDegler’s characterizationof him.In the
finalestimation,Wardbelievesthatthe oppressivemeasureshe suggestswillcarryout
evolutionandthe survivalof the fittestin a mannersuperiorto peacefulmarketenter-
prise.
As for the subjectof race,Wardis normallyhailedas someonewhorejectedracial
bigotry,whowouldnot countenancethattherewasan inherentdifferencein the racesin
termsof howtheybehaved.GeorgeMowryproclaimsthatas far as Ward“couldsee,
ability,intelligence,andenergywereall distributedequallyamongmen,andthe near
monopolyof thesecharacteristicswasduesimplyto theirsocialadvantages.”^30 Now
consultWard’s actualwordson the subjectof inbornracialdifferences.Wardproclaimed
that“the Chinese” are “lessbrilliant” thanwhites,while“the Africanis probablyless
energeticandlessintellectual.”^31 RememberthatSDATidentifiesracism,imperialism,
andeugenicsas formsof socialDarwinism.^32 In lightof this information,SDATcontra-
dictsits owncharacterizationof Wardas socialDarwinism’s nemesis.AmericanThought
acknowledges,“Wardis sometimesclassifiedamongthe socialDarwinists” on accountof
his ownbeliefthat socialprogressemergeswhenone raceconquersanother.^33
Dr. Karierrendersit unambiguousthatWard“did not believein the equalityof the
races.He wasconvinced,” as weremanyof his left-wing“[il]liberalfollowers,thatwhile
the blackracemaybe superiorin feelingsand sentiment,theywereinferiorto the white
racein cognitiveabilities.Ward,inPureSociology, suggestedthatthe blackmanwho
rapesa whitewomandoesso not onlyout of lust,but out of an almostunconsciousdesire
‘to raisehis raceto a littlehigherlevel.’ Combininga bit of malechauvinismwithhis
racism,Wardassertedthatit is morepermissiblefor a maleof a inferiorraceto have
sexualrelationswitha femaleof a superiorrace,becausein the firstinstanceit wouldbe a
matterof ‘levelingup’ whilein the lattercaseit wouldbe a matterof ‘levelingdown.’”^34
ConsiderthatHenrySteeleCommagerlionizedWardas one who“rangedhimselfunre-
servedlyon the sideof the plainpeople,fightingtheirbattleswithweaponsmoreformid-
ablethaneventhosewhichSumnerandhis disciplescouldmuster.”^35 Insofaras the
ethnicminoritiesthat Warddenigratedcan be consideredplainpeople,Commager’s
praisefor Wardamountsto emptyassumptionson Commager’s part.Accordingto Yale
UniversityhistorianRalphHenryGabriel,Wardchampionedthe “the Americanconcept
of the plannedsociety.. .”^36 Werethat not bad enough,Wardchampionedthis abomina-
tion“undera rubbleheapof ponderousphrasesand technicalwords.”^37 Hofstadter,too,
admitsthatWard“wasa forerunnerof socialplanning,”^38 thoughthe ColumbiaUniver-
sity historianhardlyintendsthatas a criticism.Similarly,Wardreceivesplauditsfrom
Ekirchfor being“an earlyexponentof a... plannedcollectivisticsociety” and “positive
socialand economicplanning,”^39 and likewisefromMowryfor his “socialengineering.”^40