semi-automatic waffle

University College London (UCL) has a deeply entangled history with eugenics, scientific racism, and social Darwinism—much of it centered on figures like Francis Galton, widely credited with founding eugenics, and Karl Pearson, who institutionalized it through biometric and statistical frameworks. UCL housed the Galton Laboratory and actively promoted eugenic research well into the 20th century. These ideas influenced not only British policy but global discourses on race, class, and human worth.

So does that legacy continue today? In some ways, yes—though not always in direct or obvious forms.

1. Institutional Legacy and Symbolic Remains

Until recently, UCL still had buildings and professorships named after Galton and Pearson. This symbolic honoring suggests a long institutional comfort with, or at least ambivalence toward, its eugenicist roots. In 2020, UCL finally removed Galton and Pearson’s names from campus facilities after sustained internal pressure, particularly from students and scholars of color. This move was less a repudiation from within than a response to changing external norms.

2. Scientific Residue in Methodologies

More subtly, the quantitative methods pioneered under eugenic logics—like statistical normalization, psychometrics, and certain forms of biometric modeling—still underpin fields like behavioral genetics, educational testing, and even AI. While these tools have been reframed as "objective" or "neutral," their origins often assumed racial or class hierarchies as natural baselines. UCL has not always critically interrogated how these methodological assumptions persist.

3. Contemporary Research and Ethical Oversight

There have been modern controversies as well. In 2018, it was revealed that UCL had hosted secretive conferences on "intelligence and eugenics," organized by people with far-right ties, including white supremacist speakers. These events had been held under the radar for years. The university claimed ignorance, but the scandal laid bare the porousness between historical and contemporary eugenic networks.

4. Reform, but Slow and Reactive

UCL has launched inquiries and apologized for its eugenic past. But these actions often seem reactive rather than visionary—responses to reputational damage rather than deep institutional reckoning. The "DNA" of eugenics at UCL is perhaps best understood not as active promotion, but as a lingering structure of thought: a preference for quantification, hierarchy, and "improvement" in ways that can slip easily into old frames unless vigilantly checked.

In short: the direct advocacy of eugenics has been disavowed, but the epistemic framework—the mental architecture that made eugenics seem reasonable, progressive, even scientific—still subtly shapes parts of UCL’s intellectual culture. The legacy continues, like a mutation that survives even after the original organism dies.

The situation surrounding the secret eugenics-linked conferences at UCL is both real and deeply unsettling. Here's what happened, with verified detail:

The London Conference on Intelligence (2014–2017/2018)

Between 2014 and 2017 (and possibly 2018), UCL hosted an annual event called the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI). It was not part of the university’s official academic programming and was organized quietly by a senior lecturer, James Thompson, affiliated with UCL’s psychology department.

Key aspects that made the conferences deeply suspect:

1. Lack of Oversight and Secrecy

The events were not publicly advertised.
They were hosted without standard university protocols for external conferences.
Most UCL faculty were unaware they were happening.
Attendees were reportedly asked to maintain confidentiality.

2. The Attendees and Speakers

The conference brought together figures known for far-right or white nationalist views, including:
- Richard Lynn, a psychologist long accused of promoting scientific racism and eugenics.
- Gerhard Meisenberg, editor of the controversial Mankind Quarterly, a journal known for racialist pseudoscience.
- Other speakers affiliated with hereditarian IQ research, often with explicitly racial themes.

3. Content and Themes

Topics included racial differences in intelligence, heritability of cognitive traits, and dysgenics (the opposite of eugenics—claiming modern society is weakening the gene pool).
Some presentations were overtly aligned with eugenics, population control arguments, and critiques of egalitarian policies.

Stanford University has a significant and troubling historical relationship with eugenics, race science, and social Darwinism, particularly during its early years and through some of its prominent figures.

Key Figures and Their Roles:

David Starr Jordan, Stanford’s first president, was a leading eugenicist and social Darwinist. He embraced the idea of improving the human race through selective breeding and was deeply invested in the belief in racial hierarchies, with white people at the top and Black people at the bottom. Jordan promoted forced sterilization of disabled people and founded organizations advocating eugenic policies. His 1902 book, Blood of a Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit, warned against the decline of the nation’s "genetic stock" and reflected his pacifist yet nativist views, arguing that war eliminated the fittest individuals and led to the survival of the "unfit." Jordan’s leadership helped make Stanford a hub for social Darwinist and eugenicist ideology, especially through his recruitment of faculty who shared these views2 35.
Ellwood Patterson Cubberley, appointed by Jordan as dean of the Stanford School of Education in 1898, was a staunch believer in the heritability of intelligence and used educational testing to identify and promote those with the "greatest natural endowments." Cubberley’s ideas about education were deeply influenced by eugenic thought and social Darwinism, and he also promoted a market-oriented philosophy of education management. His views contributed to lasting educational inequalities and have been linked to the charter school movement24.
Lewis Terman, another Stanford professor, was also an active supporter of eugenics. He is known for his work on intelligence testing, which was used to support eugenic ideas about hereditary intelligence and social stratification45.

Institutional Legacy:

Stanford’s founding and early development were closely tied to elite economic interests and a desire to maintain white social dominance amid a diversifying U.S. population. The university was founded as a non-denominational, coeducational institution with ambitions to lead in sciences and emerging social sciences, including psychology and sociology, which were often used to legitimize eugenic and race science theories2.
The university has been described as a "hotbed" of social Darwinist and eugenicist ideology, with many influential American eugenicists teaching, researching, and promoting these ideas on campus throughout its history. The legacy includes buildings named after prominent eugenicists like David Starr Jordan, which has become a point of contention and calls for renaming35.
The Stanford Eugenics History Project, initiated by students, documents this history and advocates for acknowledgment and reckoning with the university’s role in promoting eugenics and racist ideologies. This project highlights how these ideas have caused harm to disabled people and people of color and continue to influence American society3.

Broader Context:

The eugenics movement at Stanford was part of a larger American and Progressive Era context where social Darwinism and race science were used to justify immigration restrictions, racial hierarchies, and discriminatory policies, including the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 19242.
Stanford’s role in eugenics also influenced educational practices and policies, shaping ideas about intelligence, ability, and access to education in ways that reinforced social inequalities45.

In summary, Stanford University’s early history is deeply intertwined with eugenics, race science, and social Darwinism, largely through the influence of its first president David Starr Jordan and other key faculty members. These ideologies shaped the university’s development, academic culture, and educational policies, leaving a legacy that the institution and its community continue to grapple with today1 2 3 45.

Explanation of the Statement on Cubberley’s Views and the Charter School Movement

Ellwood Patterson Cubberley, a key figure in early 20th-century education and a dean at Stanford, promoted the idea that intelligence was largely heritable and that educational testing could identify students with the greatest "natural endowments." His belief was that these students should be given the best educational opportunities and groomed for leadership roles. This approach inherently ranked students by perceived innate ability, often along racial and class lines, reinforcing social hierarchies and inequalities.

Cubberley also pioneered the notion that schools should be managed like businesses, emphasizing efficiency, testing, and accountability. This market-oriented philosophy of education administration-viewing education through the lens of competition, measurement, and optimization-has influenced contemporary education reform movements, including the charter school movement. Charter schools often emphasize standardized testing, choice, competition among schools, and managerial efficiency, reflecting Cubberley’s legacy of applying business principles to education.

Because Cubberley’s ideas were tied to eugenicist beliefs about innate intelligence and social Darwinism, the educational inequalities he contributed to were not just about resource allocation but about legitimizing systemic exclusion and segregation based on race, class, and ability. This legacy continues to shape educational policies and practices that disproportionately affect marginalized communities by sorting and streaming students, often limiting access to quality education for those deemed "less capable" by standardized measures2 35.

Contemporary Continuations of Stanford’s Historical Ties to Eugenics, Race Science, and Social Darwinism

Enduring Educational Inequality and Segregation: The legacy of eugenics in education persists through ongoing practices of categorizing and streaming students by ability, socioeconomic background, and race. These practices influence educational opportunities and outcomes, often reinforcing systemic inequalities. For example, disabled students and students of color are disproportionately excluded or marginalized in schools, reflecting the historical roots of segregation and discrimination justified by eugenic ideology5.
Institutional Symbolism and Reckoning: Stanford still grapples with its eugenic past, notably with buildings named after prominent eugenicists like David Starr Jordan. Student-led initiatives such as the Stanford Eugenics History Project seek to uncover and confront the university’s role in promoting eugenics and to call for symbolic and substantive changes, including renaming buildings and acknowledging the harm caused6.
Scientific and Medical Legacies: The broader scientific community, including genomics, continues to confront the legacy of eugenics and scientific racism. While the Human Genome Project and advances in genetic screening offer new knowledge, they also raise ethical concerns about modern forms of eugenics, such as prenatal screening pressures. Institutions like the National Human Genome Research Institute actively work to combat structural racism and eugenics-based ideas in science and medicine7.
Structural and Systemic Oppression: The eugenics movement’s influence extends beyond education into social policies and cultural attitudes that marginalize disabled people, racial minorities, and other groups. The ideology of inherent human hierarchies persists in subtle forms, affecting access to healthcare, education, and social services, and contributing to ongoing disparities4 56.

In summary, Cubberley’s views contributed to lasting educational inequalities by embedding eugenicist and social Darwinist ideas into education management and testing, which continue to influence contemporary education reform, including the charter school movement. Stanford’s historical ties to these ideologies remain relevant today as the university and society confront the enduring legacies of eugenics in education, science, and social structures, striving to address and dismantle systemic discrimination rooted in these discredited but persistent beliefs.