38 Chapter 2
doneat the PioneerFund’s behest.^111 As usual,it wouldbe follyto categorizeDraperas a
free-marketer.Draperfinancedthe ImmigrationRestrictLeague(IRL).It was in largepart
a consequenceof this organization’s lobbyingeffortsthat the ImmigrationRestrictionAct
of 1924saw passage.Moreover,just as Draperself-consciouslyemulatedMadisonGrant’s
governisteugenicsadvocacy,so too did DraperadoptGrant’s environmentalism.In the
traditionof GrantandTheodoreRoosevelt,Draperadvocatedgovernmentnationaliza-
tionof the wildernessand governmentmanagementoverwildlifepreservation,irrespec-
tive of people’s privatepropertyrights,and ignorantof the benefitsof privatization.^112
AndthoughAlexanderGrahamBellwasa wealthyentrepreneur,the storyof his
involvementin the eugenicsmovementrevealsnothingof a capitalistconspiracyagainst
the underprivileged.Bell’s interestin the scientificstudyof soundvibrations—which
precipitatedhis inventionof the telephone—and in eugenicscamefromthe samesource.
Thesourcewashis earlyjob as a teacherat a privateschoolfor deafgirls.Oneof his
hearing-impairedstudents,MabelHubbard(1857–1923),wouldone day becomehis wife.
Belldiscernedfromstudyingthe genealogiesof his studentsthatsomecasesof inborn
deafnessmightbe at leastpartiallyattributableto heredity.He therebycontemplatedthe
chancethat by learningabouttheirowngenealogiesandthoseof theirprospective
spouses,peoplecouldmakechoicesin marriagepartnerthat reducedthe chancesof their
ownchildrenbeingborndeaf.Scienceand Mythclarifiesthe extentto whichthe telephone
inventorwas interestedin eugenics:“Bell observedthat normallytherewas littleprospect
of individualswithsimilarcongenitalillnesseschoosingone anotherfor marriagepart-
ners.But the segregationof the deafmadetheircasean exception,posingthe threatof a
newraceof deaf-mutes.... Moreover,he stressedhe wasinterestedonlyin the special
caseof deafness,knownto be inheritable,not a broaderspectrumof physiologicaland
psychologicaltraits.” Asidefromthoseconsiderations,RobertBannisterinformsus, Bell
wasnot enthusedby eugenics,andhe “refusedto endorsecoercivecontrols” on human
reproduction.^113 Himselfan immigrant,Bell grewincreasinglyoffendedby the governist
eugenicists’ draconianmeasuresagainstimmigrationand theircruelsterilizationpolicies.
To quoteBell’s ownwords,he abstainedfrominvolvementwithany“attemptto inter-
fere,by compulsorymeans,withthe marriagesof the defectiveandundesirable.”^114 He
elaborated,“We cannot[rightfully]controlthe marriagesof menas we can the breeding
of animals,andat firstsightthereseemsto be no wayof ascertaininghowfar human
beingsare susceptibleof variationby selection.”^115 Thus,writesGeorgiaStateUniversity
law professorPaulA. Lombardo,“Bellwouldeventuallyleavethe eugenicsmovement
and dissociatehimself” fromDavenport’s circle.^116
As for GeorgeEastman,his patronageof eugenicsresearchwasnot motivatedby a
drivingurgeto furtherracism.Eastmanwasactuallya majorfinancierof educationfor
blacks,endowingmillionsto BookerT. Washington’s TuskegeeInstitute.^117 Likewise,
JohnD. Rockefeller,Sr., foundedthathistoricallyblackeducationalseminary,Spelman
College.^118
I cannotdenyEdwinBlack’s observationthat familydynastiesfoundedby nineteenth-
centuryindustrialists—whomMatthewJosephsonfamouslytermed“robberbarons”—
financiallycontributedto governisteugenicsresearch.I do doubtBlack’s conclusion,
though,that this was a selfishcapitalistconspiracy.MadisonGrant’s friendshipwithJohn
Muirmeritsfurthercomment.ThesameWalterTruettAndersonwhosemisrepresenta-
tionof SpencerI debunkedin the previouschapter,remarks,“Eugenicsbecamea wildly
popularcause,as trendyin its timeas environmentalprotectionis today.”^119 Thatcom-
parisonprovesmoreapt thanAndersonseemsto realize.EdwinBlackshouldnoticethat
mostof theseexactsamepeoplefinancedthe earlytwentieth-century’s environmental
conservationefforts.WritesJonathanSpiro,“TheCarnegie,Harriman,andRockefeller
familieshad all contributedto the conservationactivitiesof MadisonGrant,and nowthey