"Yale Symposium on Holocaust and Genocide" Presented by the Program for Biomedical Ethics at Yale School of Medicine, Supported by the Lindenthal Family (Part 1)

January 28, 2022

Information

January 26, 2022

Mark R. Mercurio, MD, MA (Moderator)

Professor of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine

Director, Program for Biomedical Ethics

The Intention to Destroy

Evelyne de Mevius, PhD

Research Associate, Centre for International Crisis and Conflict Studies (CECRI), Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium)

Genocide: The Post-Conflict Reconstruction Process

Andrew Heinrich, JD, MPhil

Special Policy and Projects, Office of Senator Robert Menendez

Founder and President, Project Rousseau

From Norfolk to Nuremberg - The Lasting Influence of US Eugenics Laws

Katherine Kraschel, JD

Executive Director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy

Lecturer in Law, Clinical Lecturer in Law, and Research Scholar in Law, Yale Law School

ID7386

To CiteDCA Citation Guide

00:00Welcome to the Yale Symposium
00:02on Holocaust and Genocide.
00:03My name is Mark Mercurio,
00:05director of the Program for Biomedical
00:07Ethics at Yale School of Medicine.
00:09Tomorrow, January 27th is the
00:11anniversary of the liberation of the
00:13concentration camps at Auschwitz.
00:14Birkenau, and has been rightly has been
00:17designated by the United Nations as
00:20International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
00:22In this program,
00:23today and in many all around the world,
00:25this week we reflect on the events
00:27and atrocities of the Nazi era.
00:29And then the genocide that has
00:31marked so much of human history.
00:33Much of our program today will consider the
00:36role of physicians played in the Holocaust,
00:38but we will go well beyond that and
00:40include a broader historical scope,
00:42all of it, hopefully,
00:43will be of interest to our
00:44diverse audience of academics,
00:46healthcare, personnel,
00:47legal scholars, policymakers,
00:49and the general public that we've
00:51assembled here this afternoon.
00:53The medical folks in the audience.
00:55I think they're familiar with the concept
00:57of a morbidity and mortality conference
00:59where we examine a recent patient care
01:01situation where things went wrong.
01:03We do so to better understand the
01:05contributing factors and to try
01:07to make such events less likely
01:09to occur in the future.
01:10This symposium, I think,
01:12is somewhat analogous to
01:13an Eminem conference.
01:15We have an academic and intellectual
01:17interest in better understanding
01:18the events of the past and the
01:20catastrophic problem of genocide.
01:22But not just for learning sake alone,
01:24our goal ultimately needs to be to
01:26make things better going forward.
01:28To make such disasters less likely to occur.
01:32Many of you here today are in a position
01:34to help make that progress happen.
01:36In fact, I think all of us are.
01:39A couple of years ago I had the good
01:41fortune to become friends with a
01:43Yale alumnus named Jacob Lindenthal.
01:44We found that we shared an
01:46interest in this important topic.
01:48And today's symposium is the result
01:50of discussions and collaborations
01:51with Doctor Lindenthal.
01:53I'm very grateful to the Lindenthal
01:55family for funding today's event.
01:58Before we get going,
01:59I'd like to take a minute to share a
02:02message from Doctor Jacob Lindenthal.
02:04Welcome to this opening series of
02:06lectures and discussions involving
02:07health medicine and the Holocaust.
02:09The Lindenthal family is among untold
02:12others that lost significant numbers of
02:14members to the World War Two atrocity.
02:17We are humbled and grateful to
02:19join increasing numbers of others
02:20from throughout the world who
02:22consider it an obligation to help
02:24reverse the increasing tide of
02:26man's inhumanity to one another.
02:28Accordingly,
02:28we thank each of you for being with us today.
02:32We join others in the belief that
02:34academic settings are among the
02:36ideal places capable of helping
02:37to reverse this painful trend.
02:39We are also certain that you are well
02:41aware of the role that the major professions,
02:43including medicine and law,
02:45have played in this painful activity
02:48and may well be very interested in
02:51exploring the many challenging ways
02:53this situation can and must be altered.
02:56We are accordingly honored and delighted
02:58that Yale University and its School of
03:00Medicine is hosting this activity today.
03:02We thank our friends,
03:03the President of Yale, Peter Salovey,
03:05PhD, the Dean of the School of Medicine.
03:07Nancy J Brown, MD, and Mark are Mercurio,
03:10MD, director of the Program for
03:13Biomedical Ethics and our Distinguished
03:14Speakers for making this all possible.
03:17Welcome once again to each of you.
03:19That's a message from Jacob J.
03:21Linden fall, PhD Doctor of Public
03:23Health Professor Americas Emeritus
03:25at Rutgers New Jersey Medical Center
03:28and Adjunct university professor of
03:30sociology at Yeshiva University.
03:32Thank you for those kind of words
03:34and those important words, Jacob.
03:37With that, let's get started.
03:38We have six truly outstanding
03:40scholars and speakers.
03:41A3 will talk for about 30 minutes each,
03:43followed by a third 30
03:45minute panel discussion.
03:47Among those three speakers,
03:48that panel will be your opportunity,
03:50the audience to ask them questions
03:52and or share your comments and
03:53you share your comments.
03:55Please do so by submitting your questions
03:57via the question and answer function
03:58and zoom and I'll read them to the
04:01speakers during the panel half hour.
04:02Then we'll have a short break,
04:04three additional lectures,
04:05and a second panel discussion,
04:07and we will wrap this up
04:09around 4:30 PM Eastern Time.
04:11It's just about high noon in New Haven,
04:13and I know there's folks from
04:15all around the world coming in,
04:16so we appreciate that you're here
04:18and I'd like to get us started by
04:20introducing our first speaker.
04:24Evalinda Mavis is a research associate
04:26at the Center for International Crisis
04:28and Conflict Studies at Catholic
04:30University of Louvain in Belgium.
04:32Her research focuses on the
04:34articulation between the concepts
04:36of recognition and violence.
04:38She currently works in publishing
04:40and translation for ATD 4th World
04:43and the United Nations Office
04:45for Disaster Risk Reduction.
04:46Dr Davies holds a PhD in Philosophy and
04:49theology from the University of Paris,
04:51Nanterre and the University of Geneva.
04:54She holds a degree in Philosophy,
04:55a Masters degree in ethics,
04:57and a post master degree in European Studies
05:00from the Free University of Brussels.
05:03Welcome, evaleen.
05:04I'll turn this over to you.
05:08Thank you, mark.
05:09Thank you very much for the year
05:12invitation and for the opportunity
05:14of talking in front of you today.
05:17The title I've given to my presentation
05:20the intention to destroy encapsulates what
05:24is usually considered outside the legal.
05:29Context. The distinctive feature of
05:32genocide being this presentation and
05:35introductory one I should like to
05:37take the opportunity to stabilize
05:39some of the terms of the discussions
05:41that may arise during this symposium.
05:44I'll start by exposing a short chronology
05:47of determined genocide and a critical
05:49assessment of the 1948 definition.
05:51I will then they beleve into the
05:54psychosocial interpretation of the
05:56origins of the intention to destroy
05:58and conclude with some remarks on the
06:02phenomenon of competitive victimhood.
06:04The word genocide.
06:06Was coined by Jewish village lawyer
06:10raffle limpkin somewhere between 1941
06:13and 1944 when the Carnegie Endowment
06:16for International Peace published his
06:19monograph access rule in occupied Europe.
06:23The word genocide combines
06:242 different routes.
06:25First, the ancient Greeks of scented
06:28dinners that commonly means tribe,
06:30nation, people, clanin race.
06:32But it also bears the more fundamental
06:35meaning coming from its stem.
06:37Gay engineer,
06:39generation of linear descent in origin.
06:44And second, the Latin vote K.
06:46Though that means to kill,
06:48murder, Vanquish, destroy,
06:50and slaughter.
06:51This double root was meant to capture
06:53and the scope of what appeared to
06:55be a new crime on European soil.
06:57Limpkin had the horrors of
06:59the Holocaust in mind,
07:01of course,
07:01but also do massacre of the
07:03Armenians during the First World War.
07:05Together this summer root gave
07:07birth to the first.
07:09They finish and of genocide as a
07:11coordinated plan of different actions
07:13aimed at the destruction of essential
07:15foundations of the life of national groups.
07:18With the yeam of annihilating
07:22the groups themselves.
07:24The crime of genocide entered
07:26international law in 1948 when
07:28the United Nations adopted the
07:30Convention on the Prevention and
07:32Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
07:34The definition of genocide given
07:36in Article 2 reads as follows.
07:39Genocide means any of the following
07:42acts committed with intent to destroy
07:44in whole or in part, a national,
07:46ethnical, racial or religious group.
07:49As such,
07:50killing members of the group
07:52causing serious bodily or mental
07:54harm to members of the group,
07:56deliberately inflicting under
07:57group conditions of life,
07:58calculated to bring about its physical
08:00destruction in whole or in part,
08:02imposing measures intended to prevent
08:05birth within digroup enforcing,
08:07be transferring children of
08:08the group to another.
08:09Here.
08:11It is intent to destroy a group
08:13as such that defines genocide.
08:16A few points are worth mentioning.
08:19Does the criterion for genocide is
08:22not the number of victims compared
08:24to the 6 million Jews killed?
08:26During the Holocaust,
08:28the fact that only 8000 Bosnian Muslims,
08:31when I secured inside formerly
08:33displayed yet in 1995,
08:35does not alter the genocidal
08:37nature of the operations carried
08:40out by the Bosnian Serb army under
08:43the command of Radcom Ladick.
08:45Second, as it is intense that is decisive.
08:49The fact that the population
08:51is indeed or not entirely
08:53eradicated is not relevant.
08:55The fact that there still exists Tutsis
08:58in Rwanda today is not an argument
09:01against the qualification of genocide.
09:03What is compelling is that the slaughter
09:06of 800,000 victims rested on the intention
09:10to destroy the Tutsis as a people.
09:133rd, and here comes the more
09:15problematic aspect of the definition.
09:17Genocide targets individuals by virtue
09:19of their belonging to a national,
09:22ethnical, racial or religious group.
09:25Countries most opposed to adding other
09:28criteria of distinction of victimized
09:30groups in 1948 included the Soviet Union,
09:33European colonizing powers
09:34and the United States,
09:37concerned as they were that persecution
09:39committed against their own subject.
09:41Peoples might also become justiciable
09:43at an international level.
09:46This explains, for instance,
09:48the absence of the adjective
09:50political in this list.
09:52And yet the genocide on political
09:54grounds is arguably what happened
09:56in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979,
09:59when the commercial rules
10:01regime led by Pol Pot,
10:03aimed at creating a new communist
10:06order free from the 1.7 million
10:09Cambodians that did not correspond to
10:12the workers and peasants categories
10:14as defined by the 1976 Constitution.
10:18What does this case teach us?
10:21That the UN definition of 1948 should
10:24be expanded. But then to what point?
10:28Or maybe it should be reduced and
10:30abstain from giving objective criteria
10:32to distinguish victimized groups.
10:34Indeed,
10:35the victims of the genocide in
10:37Cambodia were no more part of
10:39a self defining group than the
10:41the motherhood Hutus in Rwanda.
10:43And yet genocide qualifies both massacres
10:46as much as it defines the fate of
10:49the Armenians during the First World War.
10:52Given the nature of the crimes that have
10:55been legally qualified as genocide.
10:57I would argue that genocide
10:59targets individuals based on their
11:01belonging to a group or belonging
11:03over which they had no power,
11:05and a group that may only exist in the
11:08eye of the perpetrator with the final
11:11aim of destroying the group as such.
11:154th and notwithstanding its
11:18unique characteristic,
11:20genocide belongs to the wider
11:22category of crime against humanity.
11:25The crime against humanity received
11:27its first legal definition in
11:29the London Agreement and Charter
11:31establishing the International Military
11:33Tribunal of New Imberg in 1945.
11:35Article 6 defines crimes
11:38against humanity as the murder,
11:40extermination,
11:41enslavement,
11:42deportation and other inhumane acts
11:45committed against any civilian
11:47population before or during the war,
11:51or persecutions on political,
11:54racial or religious grounds.
11:57The problematic aspects of this
12:00definition lies with the disjunction or.
12:03The inhumane act referred to
12:05appear to apply only to civilian
12:07populations and therefore not to
12:09those who have been persecuted because
12:12of discrimination on political,
12:14racial or religious grounds.
12:17On the contrary,
12:18linking the incrimination of
12:21inhumanity to discrimination.
12:22Glorifies the crime against humanity
12:25as a crime against the idea of
12:28a university shared humanity.
12:30What then makes a crime against humanity?
12:33Is the widespread or systematic
12:36attack directed against any civilian
12:38population deemed less human according
12:41to a normative conception of humanity
12:44established by the perpetrator?
12:46Contrary to subcategory genocide,
12:48crimes against humanity do not have
12:51the total or partial destruction
12:53of a group as a purpose intent
12:56pursue very different ends.
12:58Now going back to the intention to destroy.
13:04Intent or they're extremely
13:06difficult to prove legally,
13:07is relevant in the field of law.
13:10One need only think of the difference
13:13in treatment between persons accused of
13:16voluntary versus involuntary manslaughter.
13:18Intent also counts as one of the
13:21criteria that distinguishes a
13:22subject of laws understood as a
13:24person capable of realizing rights.
13:26Injury to call duties.
13:28From persons who used to be
13:30referred to as Indians, infants,
13:33and insane, meaning persons
13:36qualified as legally incompetent.
13:39The focus on intent in the definition
13:41of genocide points towards the freedom,
13:44the responsibility,
13:45and ultimately the accountability
13:47of the perpetrators.
13:49The emphasis on intent therefore,
13:51indicates that it is insufficient
13:53to characterize the perpetrators
13:55of genocide as merely insane,
13:57or, by extension, mad.
13:59The question then becomes
14:00what are they or what he said?
14:03How does a group of people come to
14:05hold the intention to destroy another?
14:08Now asking how brings us a step closer.
14:13To the complex question of why genocide?
14:16And before I developed this
14:18matter any further,
14:19I should like to underline the double
14:21meaning of this second question.
14:23The wine that interests me
14:25is one of interpretation.
14:27Interpretation explores causes
14:29to advance explanations and not
14:31reasons to defend positions.
14:34Interpretation is therefore to be
14:37distinguished from any enterprise
14:39of justification.
14:40Furthermore,
14:41causal explanations do not
14:43exhaust the question why genocide?
14:46As this question ultimately
14:48points towards one of meaning.
14:50But even if calls are,
14:51explanations are reductive.
14:52I believe that scholars all to
14:55pursue their work of interpretation
14:58with due regard for viability.
15:00As part of the collective effort
15:02of prevention called for by
15:04the injunction never again.
15:08To the question of how a group of
15:11people comes to hold the intention to
15:13destroy another French sociologist,
15:15Jackson long answers.
15:17Their genocides are designed
15:19not of a strong power,
15:21but rather of a power that
15:24feels vulnerable and aspires by
15:26a massacre to cease to be so.
15:28Historian Mark Levine and that
15:31genocide occurs where state perceiving
15:33the integrity of its agenda to be
15:36threatened by an aggregate population.
15:38Seeks to remedy the situation by
15:41the systematic on that physical
15:43elimination of the degradation
15:45in Toto or until it is no longer
15:48perceived to represent a threat.
15:51Both authors argue against explanations
15:53that make the will to power the
15:57intrinsic motivation for genocide.
15:59Rather, the perpetration of genocide can
16:02only be said to reflect a will to power,
16:05insofar as this will emerges from
16:08the vacuum being this vacuum,
16:10the perception that power is
16:12evading or has indeed evaded.
16:15Taken together,
16:16these statements hold that a
16:19regime perpetrates genocide.
16:21Underground that it feels vulnerable
16:23to a threat posed by another group.
16:26To understand first the nature of this
16:29threat and secondary action it triggers.
16:32I should like to bring you on
16:36an interdisciplinary journey
16:37marked by the contributions of
16:40sociology and psychoanalysis.
16:45The historians controversy or historical
16:47sites that broke out in Germany
16:49in the late 1980s divided German
16:52intellectuals over the explanation of
16:54the extreme violence of Nazi crimes.
16:57The controversy featured 2 opposing
17:00schools of thoughts on the one hand,
17:03advocates of the intensity thesis,
17:05so the final solution as a culmination
17:08of a longstanding ideological program.
17:11On the other, proposing proponents of
17:14Dysfunctionality's thesis place the
17:16final solution in a broader landscape of
17:19structural and situational factors that
17:21led to a gradual radicalization of violence.
17:25With the evolving nature of conflict
17:26around the world and the consequent
17:29development of conflict and genocide,
17:31studies in the early 1990s.
17:33Attention shifted to identity
17:36based violence in general.
17:38Again, 2 thesis competed for
17:41explanation on the one hand,
17:44the essentially feces defense that
17:46mass violence translates and special
17:49hatred permeating by Barrick factions,
17:52on the other hand, Deans Rently thesis.
17:553 mass violence as rational means
17:58to achieve determined social,
18:00economic, or political ends.
18:02Why is this second alternative insufficient?
18:06Well, taken to its consequences,
18:08the essentially thesis ends up
18:10assigning a violent essence to
18:13collective identities and thereby
18:16ultimately justify destruction.
18:18Similarly,
18:18the instrumentality thesis fails to
18:20explain why no other option than the
18:23destruction of the group is available
18:26to achieve determined pragmatic goals.
18:30The third path I am opening following
18:33a number of scholars before me has the
18:36potential to address these limitations.
18:39First building on the essential list.
18:41Emphasis on identity.
18:42It considers the conflict between
18:45collective identities as being
18:47the result of an antagonism that
18:49develops overtime and not in essence,
18:52born by groups.
18:54Second, drawing on the instrumentalists
18:57insistence on pragmatism,
18:59it defines winning a struggle for
19:02survival over another group as a
19:05goal worth pursuing collectively
19:06and not as a means to a distant end.
19:10To the revision of the Essentialists and
19:13instrumentally fees is the 3rd Ave I
19:16trail attributes the following values.
19:19First, the sociological concept
19:21of resentment,
19:22which in this context underlies
19:24the process of formation of
19:26exclusive identities in relation
19:28to the existence of a threat.
19:31And second,
19:32the psychoanalytical concept of paranoia,
19:36which accounts for the necessity
19:38attached to the violence of
19:40the reaction to this threat.
19:42Allow me to briefly outline both.
19:48Resentment became a sociological concept
19:50following the work of French historian
19:53Alexander in his book Democracy in America.
19:57That Ville argues that democracy carries
20:00with it and entitlement to equality.
20:03That democratic institutions themselves
20:05are never fully able to satisfy.
20:09The greater deer quality
20:11granted to citizens, he claims.
20:13The more insatiable the desire
20:16for equality between them.
20:18Goulding those who aspire to equal
20:21stages to succumb to a feeling of envy
20:25towards those who fully enjoy it.
20:27In the 1950s,
20:29German sociologist Norbert Elias
20:31popularized the opposite meaning of
20:34the term resentment in his so called
20:37established outside the relation theory.
20:40In any case,
20:41if you the dynamics between established and
20:44outsider groups on any given territory,
20:46reveale vollmar resentment that aims not
20:49at correcting a situation of inequality,
20:53but at maintaining it,
20:55members of an established group,
20:57he argues,
20:58find their self worth in their privileged
21:01social position compared to others.
21:04Conversely,
21:05they feel threatened in their own stages,
21:08injured and insecure in their feelings
21:11of self worth when a socially inferior,
21:14despite stigmatized or outside a group,
21:17is in the process of demanding not
21:20only legal, but also social equality.
21:24Resentment then emerges as a
21:26response from the established group
21:29to the intolerable humiliation of
21:32having to compete with members of
21:35a despised outsider group.
21:37Norbert Elias points out that some people
21:40are more prone to resentment than others,
21:43and I quote in general established groups
21:46which have behind them and unbroken
21:48continuity of social and political
21:51development over several centuries,
21:53and who possess a stable we consciousness
21:55of their own value are both more
21:58able and more willing to assimilate
22:00outsider groups than nations which have
22:03had a much interrupted development.
22:05Have a deeply insecure.
22:07And wounded feeling of self worth
22:09and which blazing unreal realisable
22:12status demands on themselves.
22:14Live in the shadow of the moralist.
22:16Response and have to find a new war for
22:20themselves in a more modest presence.
22:23It is a relationship between Jews
22:25and Germans that is described
22:27here by Norbert Elias.
22:29The author points out to two
22:32causes for its deterioration.
22:33First,
22:34the fact that the Germans had fallen
22:36from a position of relative power
22:39to one of deep humiliation after
22:41the Treaty of SII counting for a
22:43depleted feeling of self worth,
22:45to say the least.
22:47And second,
22:48the fact that the Jewish minority
22:50did not behave at all in a manner
22:53befitting the lowly status conferred
22:55on them as a despised minority group.
22:58According to Elias.
22:59Any group of individuals that identify
23:03that such relates to itself and to others,
23:06according to a really image,
23:08and we ideal that is according to
23:12its actual status compared to others
23:14and to what the status should be.
23:17This particular stage is being
23:20conferred under group by virtue
23:22of its intrinsic and distinctive
23:25collective characteristics.
23:26A group whose we image is aligned
23:29to its we ideal.
23:31Enjoy the stable feeling of self worth.
23:35But when an established group
23:37sexual superiority starts declining
23:39when a discrepancy instals between
23:42its sweet image and we ideal,
23:45the group feels compelled to
23:47repulse what they experience as
23:49a threat to their superiority.
23:52Exclusion and stigmatization as means
23:55to resolve the tension of resentment.
23:59Then become powerful weapons displaced
24:02by established groups to maintain their
24:05identity to assert their superiority.
24:09Keeping others firmly in their place.
24:14Mark Levine refers to this
24:16resentment when clarifying the
24:18roots of the intention to destroy.
24:20He writes the drive to genocide
24:22is a function of states with a
24:25particularly marked or latent tendency
24:27to dispute the discrepancy between
24:29the way the world is and the way
24:32they think that it ought to be.
24:35And yet there's a leap between attributing
24:37the blame of a shifting balance of power
24:40to a particular group and destroying
24:43this group by means of genocide.
24:45In other words,
24:47resentment can account for the
24:49identification of the enemy,
24:50whether a mechanism of scapegoating
24:52is involved or not for that matter.
24:55But resentment alone does not explain
24:57why the enemy should be destroyed.
25:02To understand how a threat to maintaining
25:06other group superiority can trigger a
25:09reaction in the form of a genocide.
25:12A shift from Szilagy to
25:15collective psychology is suited.
25:17Indeed, at this stage the relevant
25:19question no longer refers to
25:21how a group relates to others,
25:23but how it reacts to a specific
25:26threat to its status posed by another.
25:29Both the perception of the threats and
25:32the reaction to these threats can be
25:34accounted for by the concept of paranoia.
25:37It is Austrian.
25:39British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein,
25:42who made paranoia relevant to
25:44understanding the dynamics of
25:46genocide by elaborating it in the
25:49context of a struggle for survival.
25:52Contrary to Freud,
25:53Melanie Klein posits paranoia as a
25:56necessary phase of the development
25:58of the child.
25:59The self is assumed to relate to
26:02external objects through the blending
26:04of two instincts, life and death.
26:07However,
26:07the self information is
26:09initially exposed exposed.
26:11Sorry to splitting.
26:13Only if sufficient integration will
26:15allow the self to relate to its
26:18subjects on the mode of ambivalence.
26:21The phase during which the death
26:23instinct prevails is called the
26:26paranoid schizoid position.
26:28It is later overtaken by the
26:30depressive position in which
26:32the instinct of life dominates.
26:34During the paranoid schizoid phase death,
26:38in Ting Instinct acts internally
26:41and gives rise to a fear of
26:44annihilation in the child.
26:46By projecting the destructive
26:49impulse initially directed against
26:51itself on an external object,
26:54the self transforms this fear of
26:57annihilation into a fear of persecution.
27:01Then to protect itself from the
27:04terrifying attacks of the object,
27:06the self directing fantasy,
27:09its destructive tendencies on the object.
27:13This fight of their self for its
27:16survival is what defines the
27:18paranoid schizoid position in which
27:22persecutory anxiety predominates.
27:26Paranoia as described by Melanie Klein,
27:29can account for the root of
27:31the intention to destroy that
27:33characterizes genocide.
27:35Provided it is understood that
27:37one as a collective mechanism 2,
27:39that emerges as the result of a
27:42regression and three a regression that
27:45is caused by narcissistic crisis isn't kind.
27:49As Jackson now puts it,
27:51the possibility of a collective
27:53regression towards this psychic
27:55conflict between life and death
27:57looms in moments of severe crisis.
28:01When a group comes to realize that its future
28:05envisaged in the adequacy of its we image,
28:08and we ideal is no longer secured.
28:13This group,
28:14which define so much through this
28:17adequacy that it would disappear in
28:19substance in case it lost its status.
28:23Defends itself against the threat posed
28:25to its survival by deflecting the
28:28source of this threat onto an enemy.
28:32This projection intends triggers a
28:35delusion of persecution whose primitive
28:38logic asserts that the survival of 1
28:41depends on the death of the other.
28:44This is why,
28:45according to Scott Strauss,
28:47the logic of genocide often translates
28:50into the following late motive.
28:52Destroy them to save us.
28:56If genocide is driven by the collective
28:59attempt of a group to destroy
29:01a threat posed to its survival,
29:03the threat itself does not need to
29:06be objective to be perceived as real.
29:09How could, for example,
29:11if you 1000 Armenian soldiers compai
29:14conspiring with the Russian enemy?
29:16Against the Ottoman Empire
29:18constitute a sufficient threat to
29:21justify the killing of 1.5 million
29:24Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
29:29The problem light elsewhere.
29:31Indeed, the Armenians were the last in a
29:34very long list of peoples who had once
29:37belonged to the Sublime Porte and who,
29:40if they too seceded,
29:42would put a definitive end to many centuries
29:46of grandeur of the empire of Osman.
29:49According to this interpretation,
29:52The Young Turks resorted to annihilation
29:55to ward off the threat of being
29:58destroyed by an Armenian independence.
30:01It is Mark Levin argues this very
30:04discrepancy between an actual
30:06threat where it exists at all,
30:09and what the perpetrator claims to
30:11be a threat that is at the very
30:13heart of what more one might call
30:16the genocide conundrum.
30:18It suffices that the group be gripped
30:21by an existential fear of disappearing.
30:24That it becomes convinced that its
30:27survival is threatened by another group.
30:29To trigger a struggle in which the
30:32survival depends on the destruction of
30:35the other. The obsession of purity.
30:38Beach racial, cultural, religious,
30:41political or even genetic.
30:45Is it didn't is in this sense
30:47a development of paranoia,
30:49a swelling of the one dimensional
30:52worldview it shapes,
30:53and not a root cause of the crime.
30:56This obsession also acts as a very
31:00persuasive propaganda tool to justify
31:02radical measures to the public,
31:05and can, by extension,
31:07be applied to other groups
31:09without further ado.
31:14I should like to conclude this
31:18presentation with two remarks on
31:20competitive victimhood and that is
31:23the competition between victimized
31:25groups for the status of solo equal
31:29victims of mass violence in this case.
31:32The first address is the distinction
31:35between self proclaimed and innocent victims
31:37of Genocide II differentiates victims
31:40of genocide from other mass atrocities.
31:45My first remark posits that if
31:47resentment and paranoia can account for
31:50one possible explanation of genocide.
31:52They are to be addressed in
31:56postconflict contexts.
31:57Given the fear of annihilation
31:59that drives genocide,
32:00in this interpretation,
32:01it is not so much an actual
32:04demonstration of violence by the
32:06enemy that triggers hostility.
32:09As the mere possibility of such violence.
32:13Violence, in fact,
32:14is often dispelled by the threatened group
32:17as a preemptive measure of self protection.
32:20And targets the enemy on the
32:23grounds of what it might do.
32:26As a result,
32:27the enemy succumbs as guilty of
32:29deeds imputed to his will by a self
32:34victimized perpetrators group.
32:35From this perspective,
32:37the aftermath of a genocide features not one,
32:41but two groups of victims.
32:43A group of self proclaimed victims
32:46of an existential threat.
32:48And a group of objective victims
32:51of direct violence.
32:52And two groups of perpetrators.
32:55A group of effective perpetrators
32:57and a group of potential ones
33:00in the eyes of the former.
33:02Did you well significance attached to
33:04the terms victims and perpetrators
33:06here in after a crime of this sort,
33:09naturally causes great moral discomfort.
33:13It ought to be factored by criminal law,
33:16whose function at this stage is
33:18to establish the innocence of
33:21the objective victim and punish
33:23the effective perpetrators.
33:26Yet,
33:26failing in the aftermath of a genocide
33:29to consider the meaning of these terms
33:31from the perspective of the perpetrator.
33:34Can potentially be conduct the violence
33:36that led to the crime in the 1st place.
33:40I'm not arguing that self proclaimed
33:43victims of an existential threat
33:45who have committed genocide should
33:48be regarded in the same way as
33:50objective victims of the crime
33:52from memorial perspective.
33:55But what I am saying is that if the
33:58delusion of persecution that led to
34:00the crime is not deconstructed in one
34:03way or another in post conflict situations.
34:06Violence is likely to pursue its
34:09course in the form of denial,
34:11among others.
34:14In my second remark,
34:16concerns the distinction between victims
34:18of genocide and other mass atrocities.
34:22Not all genocides can be accounted for
34:25by the resentment paranoia spectrum.
34:28At most this continuum can explain the
34:31outbreak of violence in some cases,
34:33but it is not a requirement of the
34:36definition of the crime itself.
34:38Conversely,
34:38not all events of violence that feature
34:41this continuum necessarily announced
34:43the perpetration of a genocide,
34:46even though I would argue they
34:49deserve special attention.
34:51Likewise,
34:52not all mass atrocities qualify as genocides.
34:57There's only one internationally agreed
34:59legal definition of the crime of genocide.
35:02And even though it may be considered
35:05insufficient in some respects,
35:06or outdated because it is context specific,
35:10I believe it constitutes a reliable
35:14compass for representations.
35:15The inflation of claims of genocide
35:18to describe events of mass violence
35:21is most evident in contemporary times
35:24and most understandable as well as
35:27genocide is symbolically associated
35:29with the worst of all crimes.
35:31Yet perhaps we should not rush to label
35:34events of mass violence as genocides
35:37after respect for the victims of the past,
35:40certainly, but also to allow this
35:42category to continue to be operative.
35:45The violence inflicted upon victims
35:47is no less when a mass crime does not
35:51conform to the legal definition of genocide.
35:54A crime against humanity is bad enough.
35:58I thank you very much for your attention.
36:04Thank you very much, Evelyn.
36:06That was that was excellent.
36:08I'd like to introduce please our next
36:11speaker who will be Andrew Heinrich.
36:15Andrew was actually instrumental
36:17in informing this conference.
36:19Jacob Lindenthal put me in touch with
36:21Andrew and I wanna thank you now,
36:22Andrew, before you begin for
36:24your help in organizing this.
36:25Andrew Heinrich,
36:26JD and Master of Philosophy was
36:28recently a faculty at the Yale School
36:30of Public Health and currently works
36:31in Special Policy and projects in the
36:33office of Senator Robert Menendez.
36:35He's the founder and president
36:37of Project Rousseau and also
36:38serves on the board of the Hebrew
36:40International AIDS Society,
36:42a refugee resettlement agency.
36:44Attorney Heinrich Completers is JD
36:46at Harvard Law School in Master of
36:49Philosophy at Oxford University welcome.
36:51Andrew, I turn it over to you.
36:55Thank you very much,
36:56Mark and thank you for all you've done to
36:58bring together a wonderful symposium today.
37:00Thank you also to Karen Cole,
37:01but I know that without administrative help,
37:03these things never come together.
37:05So thank you Karen.
37:06So pleasure to be with such
37:07wonderful other speakers today.
37:09It's a particularly intimidating privilege
37:11to follow my very good friend of lean.
37:14I thank everyone here for their interest.
37:16And I remind everybody that my remarks today
37:19reflect my own views and my own findings.
37:21Based on research I conducted before being
37:24employed by the United States government.
37:27The study of post conflict reconstruction
37:30largely began with the study of
37:32the post conflict reconstruction
37:33of Post World War Two, Europe,
37:34particularly that of West Germany.
37:36Literature celebrates the rapid
37:38economic growth and infrastructure
37:39development in West Germany.
37:41West Germany's political and economic
37:42integration with in Western Europe,
37:44led by its partnership with France
37:46in what is often termed as the motor
37:49of European integration and the rapid
37:51normalization of Western German.
37:53West German politics and state behavior.
37:55Of course,
37:56these platitudes are absolutely
37:57justified in many senses.
37:59West Germany is a shining example of
38:01what post conflict reconstruction
38:03can be at its absolute best.
38:05True,
38:05as this may be.
38:07There are also significant differences
38:09between post war West Germany and the
38:11post conflict Reconstruction project
38:12as it has been attempted since.
38:15Indeed post war West,
38:16Germany's reconstruction was an anomaly
38:18because of the unique international
38:20circumstances in which it occurred.
38:22I argue that there are three factors
38:24that strike me as most important.
38:261st and by far most importantly of
38:28course was the looming Cold War
38:30context in which reconstruction
38:31of West Germany and that of the
38:34its European neighbors occurred.
38:35It meant that post war reconstruction
38:38in West Germany was truly mostly about
38:41balancing against the Soviets and less
38:44about the project of post conflict
38:46reconstruction for its own sake.
38:48Indeed,
38:48it is telling that in Europe in particular,
38:51a very common first year essay
38:53question for undergraduates studying
38:54European history or politics
38:56is to expound upon the ways.
38:57In which the Marshall Plan was
38:59quote strategy rather than charity.
39:01Close quote.
39:01The catch phrase is a helpful reminder
39:04that we should not assume that other
39:06post conflict contexts will benefit
39:08from commensurate levels of aid and
39:10support because of the unique early Cold War.
39:12Strategic considerations of
39:13the United States, the UK,
39:15and other donors.
39:17Secondly,
39:17the legacy of both world wars created a
39:20desire for interdependence within Europe.
39:23The Marshall Plan was intentionally
39:24structured to create interdependence,
39:26especially between the UK
39:27and other Member States,
39:29such as through the creation of the
39:31Organization for European Economic
39:33Cooperation where primarily British
39:35but also other European officials
39:37allocate allocated Marshall Plan funds.
39:39Indeed,
39:39the sentiment was even held within
39:42West Germany itself as Tim Garton.
39:44Ash iconically said,
39:45West Germany sought to put herself in quote.
39:47Golden handcuffs close quote of
39:49economic interdependence with
39:50other Western European states
39:52to avoid another spiral towards
39:54autocracy within Germany.
39:55Interdependence eventually
39:56took the form of the ECS.
39:58See the European Coal and Steel Community,
40:00and then eventually, as we all know,
40:01the European Community and then
40:03most recently the European Union.
40:053rd and perhaps most interestingly,
40:07reconciliation was not as
40:09necessary in post World War Two
40:11as it was in other context sins,
40:13because the Allies learned from their
40:15perceived mistakes after World War
40:16One and ensured that World War Two.
40:18Ended with a full military victory and
40:21unconditional surrender and conquest,
40:22and indeed occupation.
40:23This stands in stark contrast
40:25to the common practice today,
40:27where intervention is far more temporary
40:29occupations when they do occur,
40:31such as the American occupations of
40:33Afghanistan and Iraq are longer,
40:35but they are still temporary,
40:36and then we all tragically know too
40:38well and have been reminded recently.
40:40Do not achieve reconstruction.
40:41This trend is rigorously and insightfully
40:44investigated in Tanisha Fazal state death,
40:46a book about which I will speak more later,
40:49where she notes that the reason why
40:51states have not failed to the point
40:53of ceasing to exist in post war in
40:55the post war world is that they
40:57are not allowed to be conquested.
41:00There has been a norm against
41:02conquest that has evolved regardless
41:03of 1's thoughts on conquest.
41:05Of course,
41:06that empirically means that post
41:07conflict states are now more
41:09often left to their own devices
41:10for post conflict reconstruction.
41:12Indeed,
41:12that is why post conflict reconstruction,
41:15as we will investigate it today,
41:17is a new problem.
41:18The number of instances in which
41:20post conflict reconstruction
41:21is needed is far greater,
41:23and the context in which they
41:24are needed are far different,
41:26are quite different from that
41:28of West Germany.
41:29Of course,
41:30this also creates a modern and frequent
41:32challenge that was avoided much more
41:34successfully after World War Two than
41:36it ever can be in the post war era,
41:39which is the relapse of conflict among
41:40our very first topics of discussion
41:42today will be lessons learned about
41:44how we might be able to mitigate
41:46the risk of relapse into conflict.
41:47These 33 differences as I've
41:49stated them above, are stark.
41:51They mean that from a technical perspective,
41:54we should be wary of drawing
41:56too much learning from the post
41:58conflict reconstruction needs of
42:002022 and beyond from the unique
42:02circumstances of post war Germany.
42:04However,
42:04there is one glaring commonality that shines
42:07through and to introduce the concept,
42:09I turn to the words that I will
42:11remember forever stated to me
42:13many years ago by the absolutely
42:15revered and and now Emeritus
42:17Professor of European History.
42:19At Oxford and Dayton,
42:20Ann and I were one speaking about the post
42:23War World War Two reconstruction process,
42:25and I brought a development background
42:27to this conversation and I was
42:29discussing my views very much like
42:30I just told all of you about the
42:32ways in which the international
42:34aid community cannot learn as
42:36much from post war Germany,
42:38as perhaps some scholars of
42:40European history suggest for the
42:42purposes of post conflict reconstruction.
42:45And replied by asking me to paint a
42:47picture of what I thought it would look
42:49like to fly a plane over Europe in 1945
42:52right at the end of World War Two.
42:53I talked about the other destruction,
42:55the lack of infrastructure and so forth.
42:58She looked at me almost disgusted,
43:00but had a bit of a smirk on her face.
43:02I think I fell and I had fallen
43:04into her trap and she asked me.
43:06But what about the millions of people
43:08moving around aimlessly every which way,
43:10trying to find their way home?
43:13And what came from there was her
43:15statement of what she thinks is similar
43:17between post conflict reconstruction
43:19after World War Two and now.
43:20I wish I had written down her words verbatim,
43:22but there was something along the lines
43:25of there's so much focus on economic and
43:27political reconstruction that we don't
43:29discuss what to do with the people. Indeed,
43:31I think many of us are guilty of this.
43:33The word reconstruction in the very
43:35term post conflict reconstruction
43:37clearly refers to the state,
43:38its political function,
43:40its infrastructure,
43:40its economy, and so forth.
43:42While these elements are of course
43:44integral to an individual's post war life,
43:47the term reconstruction does not
43:48directly refer to rebuilding people's
43:50lives despite the extraordinary
43:52reconstruction of West Germany as a state,
43:54the international community did
43:56not reconstruct lives as well as
43:58it could have after World War Two.
44:00Liberated concentration camp
44:01prisoners who could not be relocated.
44:03Well,
44:04we're often put in camps again and
44:07some took years to be resettled,
44:09while others never truly found a way
44:11home or a new home for that matter,
44:13there were 15 million prisoners
44:15of war when World War Two ended.
44:17Indeed,
44:17a mind boggling number and
44:19the international community,
44:20similarly and understandably
44:22struggled with repatriating them.
44:24As the years went on,
44:25a trend emerged as sophisticated restitution
44:27law and tribunals came into existence.
44:30The international community developed
44:31impressive competence at restitution for
44:34wealthy victims and their descendants,
44:36such as through stolen art,
44:37restitution, Holocaust,
44:38restitution,
44:38payment programs by Germany and
44:40Austria have been impressive,
44:42but only reached about 800,000
44:44victims and their relatives.
44:46A fraction of those who should be
44:47entitled to some form of restitution,
44:49and Dayton reminder is a poignant one.
44:51We do not talk enough about
44:53the victims when we talk about
44:54post conflict reconstruction.
44:56Post conflict reconstruction when
44:57taking care is when taking care
44:59of the victims should begin.
45:00The international community failed
45:01to do so adequately after the
45:03end of the Second World War,
45:04and we still have a ways to go.
45:06For those of you who are
45:07health care professionals,
45:08I think this is a particularly
45:09important reminder,
45:10and we'll touch on it later.
45:11Today our goal will be to
45:13explore how we can get better.
45:15A human centered post conflict
45:17reconstruction drawing on the
45:18shortcomings of all post conflict,
45:20reconstruction,
45:20and the types of challenges that
45:23distinguish modern reconstruction
45:24from post World War Two reconstruction,
45:26we will investigate the most pressing
45:28needs of post conflict reconstruction,
45:30as it is done today.
45:31We will start with three
45:33granular specific concerns.
45:35First, how can the risk of relapse
45:37into conflict be mitigated?
45:39Secondly, how do we mitigate the risk?
45:41Of state failure.
45:43Third, how do we reconstruct
45:45social and medical services?
45:47We will find that some themes emerge in
45:49each of these areas such as brain drain.
45:51The idea that the educated intelligentsia
45:54leave a conflict zone and never
45:56return and its impact on each of
45:58the three areas I've just stated.
46:00We will then zoom out and ask some
46:03macrocosmic questions such as the risk
46:05of creating a reconstruction process
46:06that simply entrenches elites be
46:08they the original or new elites and
46:10the question of a trade off between
46:12economic rights and individual liberties,
46:14one that's particularly vibrant
46:15today in some of the post conflict
46:17contexts in East Africa.
46:19Through this analysis,
46:20we hope to gain a better understanding
46:21of how we can improve at human
46:23centered post conflict reconstruction,
46:24one that prioritizes stability,
46:27reconciliation,
46:28strong medical and social services,
46:29and individual opportunity in a way
46:32that balances rapid economic growth
46:34with maintaining individual liberties.
46:37So for our first granular question,
46:39how can relapse be prevented?
46:41Of course,
46:42in order to ask that question well,
46:43we should figure out if backsliding
46:46into ethnic conflict is a risk,
46:48and indeed it is, and indeed there is a risk.
46:52There are really two reasons for this.
46:55The first is that as friends and depco,
46:59the Department of Peacekeeping operations
47:01in the UN often say peacebuilding.
47:03In today's world,
47:04is often forced to begin before
47:06conflict ever ends,
47:07and so there is an incomplete
47:09end to the conflict.
47:11There's also incomplete reconciliation.
47:13Much of what Evelyn just said
47:16is very relevant to that.
47:18A complete reconciliation on on the level
47:20of the social groups involved in the
47:23conflict lead to a risk of backsliding.
47:26So what can we do about this and what
47:28how can we mitigate those risks?
47:30I think we have some bright spots
47:31to look at and I think we can divide
47:33them into two types of approaches.
47:34The institutional approaches
47:36and the grassroots approaches.
47:38An institutional bright spot to look at
47:41is is that of Bosnia in particular and
47:45the post Yugoslav states in general.
47:48The Dayton Accords and subsequent
47:51law institutionalizes ethnic
47:53representation at the government level.
47:56This has created a venue for ethnic
47:59politics that is legitimate and does not
48:02leave anyone formally outside of the system,
48:05which does happen in other
48:06post conflict contacts.
48:07This has certainly helped in some way.
48:11There are complications,
48:11of course,
48:12with this idea one is that it often
48:14entrenches the differences between
48:16groups because they each have their
48:18own elected leader and leaders.
48:20The other is that there is a challenge
48:23that those who leave are less
48:26likely to return because and this
48:29is very common for commonly seen.
48:31For example,
48:32in the Kurds because they know
48:33they would
48:34have to have a power sharing
48:36agreement with perhaps the side that
48:37they just fled persecution from.
48:41On the I, On the contrary,
48:43we have the grassroots approach
48:45you would see this, for example,
48:46as is very famously known in an area
48:48of study to me with Gauchos in Rwanda.
48:51Gotchas for those who aren't familiar
48:53with the term is a form of reconciliation
48:55that is done on the Community level.
48:58They are done in quite literally
49:00seated in circles where folks
49:03admit to their wrongdoing,
49:05and other folks grant forgiveness.
49:08And in fact,
49:09what's so amazing about this is
49:11that institutional interference,
49:13such as the ICT,
49:14are the being the International
49:16Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
49:18We're very UN welcomed by by much
49:20of Rwanda that was engaging so
49:22well in gachas because they felt
49:24that the ICTR was too slow and too
49:26incomplete and they were doing
49:28reconciliation just fine at the
49:30grassroots level on their own and our
49:32international health was unwanted.
49:34Uhm?
49:36The challenge of course with
49:38Gaches is that they can be or
49:40bringing that to other places.
49:41It was deeply culturally dependent
49:43and required a lot of cultural
49:45background that was extremely important
49:47to letting the framework for this.
49:49And of course it can be
49:52incomplete when it's at Hawk.
49:54Uhm?
49:57I think that this raises in all
49:58phases the importance of brain
50:00drain and the risk of relapse
50:02into conflict because of the need
50:03for strong government officials.
50:05And as I said, we'll get back
50:06to that later when I get to the
50:08reconstructing social medical services,
50:10which I expect will be of prime interest
50:12to many of you will discuss that.
50:14In and tackle that question head on.
50:19The next question is how do we keep
50:21states from failing as they are going
50:24through post conflict reconstruction?
50:28The first question, of course,
50:29is why do we care about state failure at all?
50:33And the the answer here,
50:35of course, is that.
50:36State failure is a relatively new phenomenon.
50:40As I mentioned, states used to
50:42be conquered when they were weak,
50:44and as Tanisha mentioned,
50:46as Tanisha Fazal mentioned,
50:48a norm that was championed by the United
50:50States at the conclusion of the Second
50:51World War was that conquest was needed,
50:53no longer appropriate,
50:54and obviously in the context of the Cold
50:56War you could see why this was important.
50:58You had your bandwagoning that occurred in
51:00both sides and you're balancing against the
51:02other side that occurred on both sides,
51:04meaning the US and the Soviet
51:05side and you were meant to leave
51:07the states as independent.
51:08Rather than conquer World War Two,
51:10it was seen was was powerful proof
51:15that conquest only leads to trouble.
51:18Of course,
51:19lack of conquest,
51:19or more precisely the allowing of
51:22failed states that have not regained
51:25the ability to self govern effectively,
51:28usually through lack of infrastructure.
51:31The allowing of them to maintain also
51:34creates challenges and state failure is is a.
51:37Phenomenon that creates nothing but
51:40opportunity for malicious actors.
51:43And indeed I think many colleagues
51:45of ours who specialize,
51:47for example in the rise of ISIS,
51:49would point to state failure both in
51:52Iraq and potentially in Syria as a
51:55key permissive factor that allowed
51:58for the successful growth devices.
52:01This means that we have to think
52:03about what to do about state failure.
52:05This was not a concept in Germany
52:07because of course yes,
52:08West Germany existed as a state,
52:10but it wasn't independent, it was it.
52:13It was run as a military occupied
52:15zone for many years,
52:16and as Adenauer and subsequent
52:18chancellors and other officials were
52:20able to build build constructively on
52:22the occupying forces efforts and on
52:24the funds that were received through, say,
52:27the Marshall Plan and other instruments.
52:29Power was was given back overtime.
52:33And so I think it's really important to
52:34remember that this is a new phenomenon.
52:36Our playbook is not complete.
52:39This might not be an endorsement
52:40of course of prolonged occupation,
52:42but it's at least a factual observation.
52:46So. What do you what do you do?
52:51And I guess the first question that
52:53comes out of that question is where do
52:54you get the talent from to run your country?
52:57Once again,
52:57we're back to brain drain.
52:59I think that this is something that has been
53:02really extraordinary in the case of Rwanda,
53:06again,
53:06an area of particular interest
53:07to meet the Rwandan Government
53:09has a diaspora ministry.
53:10It's thought of its minister is thought
53:12of as a cabinet member like anyone else.
53:15And the Diaspora ministry has
53:17sought ways to bring.
53:20Rwanda's best and brightest,
53:21back to Rwanda, either through investment
53:23or through other means of work.
53:24They've incentivized working in Rwanda.
53:26They've incentivized opening
53:27businesses in Rwanda.
53:28Indeed, they've incentivized
53:29running for political office
53:31in Rwanda in a variety of ways,
53:33and it has largely worked.
53:36There's also a particularly
53:40interesting finding here about.
53:43The idea that we should improve what
53:45we need improve our understanding of
53:47what we need and what infrastructure
53:50is needed overtime and I'll get
53:52to this again because, again,
53:53this this topic overlaps each of
53:56our three granular challenges.
53:58But I think that one of the things
54:00that is most interesting to me is the
54:02question of human infrastructure,
54:04and usually in the international
54:07Aid and Development community.
54:08We use basic literacy rates as our
54:10success metric and our primary success
54:12metric for reconstruction of education,
54:14services and reconstruction of the workforce.
54:19The assumption is that basic literacy is
54:22sufficient for participation and democracy.
54:24And, and that's probably true.
54:27Of course,
54:28a functioning government needs more
54:30than a widely literate population.
54:32Indeed, a functioning government
54:34needs functionaries bureaucrats.
54:36It needs leaders,
54:38and it needs a business community and
54:41a third sector and a fourth sector
54:43that the of the press that is educated
54:46and able to carry out its functions,
54:48and perhaps to promote democracy and
54:51to promote stable reconstruction,
54:53we need to have a greater focus on
54:55higher education in these spaces.
54:57Indeed,
54:57this was a topic of a paper I wrote
55:00a few years ago that grew out of
55:02my masters thesis.
55:043rd the question of reconstructing social
55:07medical services to discuss this topic.
55:10I will use a vignette to
55:13motivate our discussion.
55:14Maternal mortality in Uganda had
55:16been one of the great achievements
55:19of the Millennium Development Goals.
55:22The improvement in that number was
55:24often heralded as proof that the
55:26Millennium Development Goals were
55:28true to form were achieving their
55:30purpose in the developing world,
55:33and indeed pushed states to new heights.
55:37Unfortunately,
55:38about halfway through the Millennium
55:40Development 15 year period between
55:422000 and 2015, Uganda went backwards.
55:46In fact,
55:47not only did it regressed to its
55:49original state maternal mortality,
55:50but the rate of maternal mortality rose
55:52beyond what it had been originally.
55:55As some may know,
55:56this was against the backdrop of
55:59conflicts with the LRA and ADF
56:012 armed groups in Uganda.
56:03And the development community
56:04wrapped its head about what could
56:07have been going on here.
56:08But what was fascinating was the
56:10ultimate finding and it came from
56:12someone who was smart enough to
56:14ask where are these women dying
56:16during childbirth?
56:17And it turns out many were dying
56:20in cars and what had happened was
56:23out of a phenomenal effort to.
56:27Improve the protection of
56:29natural wildlife in Uganda.
56:32New restrictions against driving
56:34through wildlife preserves were created.
56:37And due to lack of infrastructure
56:39and other issues,
56:40women from rural areas in
56:43Uganda who went into labor were
56:45driven around these reserves.
56:46If you can imagine this
56:48in your head around these
56:49preserves. And the additional
56:51length of commute greatly increased
56:53the risk of maternal mortality.
56:55This shows us that when we seek to
56:58reconstruct medical and social services,
57:01indeed much like we all discuss social
57:03determinants of health in the states,
57:05we need to think about other areas of
57:07policy making just as much, in this case,
57:09infrastructure is obviously critical to that,
57:12and for anyone who might be interested,
57:14motorway development and hospital
57:16and health system design and the
57:18intersection of those two areas is
57:19an area waiting for your research,
57:21so I encourage you to pursue that
57:24as a call to.
57:26I think the second question,
57:28in addition to infrastructure and other needs
57:30for rebuilding social medical services,
57:32is to think about the vacuum in those
57:34areas that is created when a conflict ends
57:37or is perceived to have come to an end.
57:39But organizations like MSF known in
57:41the states as Doctors Without Borders,
57:44does phenomenal work and and has
57:48heroic accomplishments to its
57:50name in in so many conflicts,
57:52but they they are there to achieve
57:55a particular goal and it's based
57:58on the acute humanitarian need.
58:00There's typically a delay of years after MSF
58:04moves on a majority or all of its operations,
58:07and moves it to the next crisis before.
58:10The stable long term
58:13operations are put in place.
58:15Rwanda is very much a bright spot,
58:17though in this regard Rwanda was
58:19able to build its its health care
58:22system and extraordinary rate.
58:24And one of the reasons for this
58:26was that they were able to get.
58:27They were fortunate enough to bring doctors.
58:30And other health care professionals
58:33to Rwanda at phenomenal rates.
58:36This brings us back to our theme of
58:39mitigating or preventing brain drain,
58:41and it reminds us of the diaspora
58:44investment instruments and
58:45the diaspora incentives that.
58:47But also the focus on education and
58:50training domestically in Uganda.
58:52One of the great innovations after the
58:54challenges that I've just mentioned
58:56was that was an amazing midwife free
58:59program throughout rural Uganda that
59:01bring the numbers for the maternal
59:04mortality rate in Uganda back to baseline
59:06and indeed back towards the MDG goal.
59:08They ultimately achieved.
59:12You see themes emerging
59:15between all of these spaces.
59:17For example, the need to mitigate
59:20brain drain the the idea of new
59:23challenges that have emerged because
59:26of the differences between the post
59:29court war reconstruction project in
59:31Europe and that of conflicts that took
59:34place after World War Two altogether.
59:36But these granular questions
59:38beg some of the big questions.
59:40First is the cynical question that
59:45particularly poignant when you think
59:49about reconstruction as it relates to.
59:52A professional working class in government
59:54and in other sectors and that is.
59:56Does rebuilding by necessity.
59:58The way we're discussing here,
60:00just institutionalized a power
01:00:01dynamic that exists immediately
01:00:03after the conflict and lock it in,
01:00:06including the marginalization
01:00:07of groups that aren't put into
01:00:10those positions of power.
01:00:12And indeed,
01:00:12this is a challenge that comes up in many
01:00:14post conflict reconstruction context.
01:00:16But one phenomenally important
01:00:17argument is of course diasporas
01:00:19are often representative of the
01:00:21diversity of the country in its whole.
01:00:24I think Rwanda is a great example where
01:00:26there were many waves of desperate
01:00:28communities that left Rwanda from
01:00:30right around independence in the early
01:00:3260s through the genocide in the 90s,
01:00:35and so different groups in different
01:00:37subgroups fled for different reasons
01:00:39over over those 30 years and.
01:00:41We were able to populate these
01:00:44professional positions in a diverse manner.
01:00:46Of course,
01:00:47education is also key at the domestic level,
01:00:50with the eye towards achieving
01:00:53representative education.
01:00:54Another big question to leave more as
01:00:56one for our collective consideration
01:00:59is the supposed tension between
01:01:02collective economic and social rights
01:01:04and individual liberties in the post
01:01:07conflict reconstruction context.
01:01:11President Kagame of Rwanda is often
01:01:13cited as saying that he prioritizes
01:01:15the former over the latter,
01:01:16and that perceived lacking
01:01:18of individual liberty are,
01:01:20perhaps, if they exist,
01:01:21a price to pay for the extraordinary and
01:01:25unique and miraculous economic growth
01:01:28of Rwanda in the post genocide era.
01:01:31I think this is an open question,
01:01:33and one that folks consider in many contexts.
01:01:36And, of course,
01:01:38the rise of China and its focus on economic.
01:01:41Rights as as paramount over
01:01:43individual liberties could shift the
01:01:45discussion in the developing world.
01:01:47In fact, it probably already has.
01:01:52So what have we learned?
01:01:54We might learn on the first hand that
01:01:57post war Germany Post World War Two.
01:01:58Germany is not the pinnacle of post
01:02:03conflict reconstruction practice
01:02:04for the 21st century because of the
01:02:07profound differences created by the
01:02:08Cold War context and other factors.
01:02:11That being said,
01:02:12I think the single most important lesson
01:02:15that comes out of post war Germany is
01:02:18indeed profoundly relevant to the post
01:02:20conflict contexts we observe today,
01:02:23which is that.
01:02:24We need human centered reconstruction
01:02:26and I think that so much of what
01:02:28you'll hear from colleagues today
01:02:30speaks about individuals and their
01:02:33experiences through the conflict.
01:02:35And of course,
01:02:36through post conflict experiences,
01:02:37and I think that and Dayton's
01:02:40words ring true here.
01:02:41That human centered reconstruction
01:02:42that focuses on individuals that
01:02:44thinks about what does it look like to
01:02:46fly a plane over this conflict zone?
01:02:47And what can we do to the people
01:02:49we see to help the people we see,
01:02:51I think, is is most important,
01:02:53and I think we've learned some
01:02:55great lessons from examples.
01:02:56Today there are for each of the
01:02:58granular challenges we face,
01:03:00we have found some solutions,
01:03:02some solutions and some genre
01:03:04of solutions seem to re emerge
01:03:07repeatedly preventing brain Jane or
01:03:09mitigating brain Jane or reversing it.
01:03:11Perhaps most realistically after it occurs.
01:03:14Is really important.
01:03:16I think the reconstruction of long
01:03:18term health and social services is
01:03:21a really important point that again
01:03:23focuses on how we can respond for
01:03:26the long term reconstruction process,
01:03:28not just immediate stabilization
01:03:29and immediate meeting of clinical
01:03:31needs in the moments after conflict.
01:03:34And I think the concept of higher
01:03:37education as a priority domestically
01:03:39is one that also rings true.
01:03:42These solutions are of course
01:03:44interdependent because the problems
01:03:45themselves are interdependent.
01:03:47Brain drain doesn't exist in a vacuum.
01:03:49It's reinforced by ethnic conflict
01:03:50and of course relapse into conflict.
01:03:52It reinforces it even further.
01:03:55I think many colleagues working on
01:03:57Burkina Faso fear that at the moment,
01:03:59for example,
01:04:00with the most recent coup this week.
01:04:03State failure reinforces and
01:04:04is reinforced by both of these
01:04:07phenomenon and all of these are what
01:04:10contribute to the level of ability
01:04:13or inability of a state to build
01:04:16functional social and medical services.
01:04:18Indeed,
01:04:18much of the great work that many of
01:04:21you on this call do in the developing
01:04:23world is of course dependent on
01:04:25the lack of relapse into conflict.
01:04:27The lack of state failure because
01:04:29of the infrastructure and and
01:04:31safety concerns you have.
01:04:33And rightfully have.
01:04:35These bright spots we can learn from
01:04:37can hopefully be stitched together into
01:04:39something that looks like a blueprint
01:04:41or at least maybe a decision tree.
01:04:43There's no one right path,
01:04:45but we have pieces of paths that
01:04:47we can put together that are
01:04:49proven to achieve part of the of
01:04:51the way towards the ultimate goal
01:04:53of post conflict reconstruction,
01:04:55and I encourage us to continue
01:04:57to think about lessons
01:04:58that we can learn from all of the
01:05:01post conflict reconstruction contexts
01:05:02that you find most interesting
01:05:04to add to this decision tree.
01:05:06To create a more full road map,
01:05:08a more full menu for post conflict
01:05:12reconstruction practitioners in all
01:05:13domains as they continue to build a
01:05:16more complete picture of how we can
01:05:19address the challenges of post conflict
01:05:21reconstruction in the 21st century.
01:05:24With that, I thank you all
01:05:25for your attention,
01:05:26and I give the floor back to you, Mark.
01:05:30Thank you so much Andrew.
01:05:32That was terrific.
01:05:33I really appreciate that.
01:05:35After two after two wonderful talks,
01:05:37we have a third coming up and this
01:05:40will be Catherine L Kraschel JD,
01:05:43who is the executive director at
01:05:45the Solomon Center for Health Law
01:05:47and Policy lecturer in law and a
01:05:50research scholar in law at the
01:05:52Yale Law School where she also Co
01:05:55teachers the reproductive rights
01:05:57and justice project of clinic.
01:05:59Katie is a longtime friend of this
01:06:02program and and we're delighted
01:06:04that she's here to speak today.
01:06:06Attorney Crossville holds a
01:06:07Bachelors degree in biochemistry
01:06:09from Mount Holyoke College and a
01:06:11law degree from Harvard Law School.
01:06:12She completed Harvard Medical
01:06:14School's Fellowship in bioethics,
01:06:16and she will speak on the topic
01:06:18from Norfolk to Nuremberg,
01:06:20the lasting influence of US eugenic laws.
01:06:23Katie I turn it over to you.
01:06:28Great, thank you so much Mark.
01:06:30Just making sure everybody can see my screen.
01:06:32OK we can. Great, thank you.
01:06:37So I'll start my remarks
01:06:39today with an apology.
01:06:41I've subjected you all to a
01:06:42bit of a bait and switch.
01:06:44I was excited to participate
01:06:46in today's discussion.
01:06:47When Mark invited me and once we
01:06:49settled on a topic for my talk,
01:06:52the role of U.S.
01:06:53law in the Holocaust,
01:06:54I embarked upon shepardizing my
01:06:56materials since the last time I
01:06:59did a focus look at this topic and
01:07:01in so doing I came to appreciate
01:07:04that it was the first time.
01:07:06And it was that it was time for
01:07:09me to reframe the presentation.
01:07:11I'd share with you all today initially,
01:07:13perhaps because I was speaking with Mark,
01:07:16who leads his wonderful bioethics
01:07:18program and with the knowledge
01:07:20that much of the day would focus
01:07:21on the role of physicians,
01:07:23I immediately jumped to eugenics and the
01:07:26explicitly eugenic motivated laws in the US.
01:07:29And upon further reading,
01:07:31research, and reflection.
01:07:32What I think is also an
01:07:33artifact of the growth.
01:07:35I've been fortunate to have as part
01:07:37of the community at law school.
01:07:38I realized I shouldn't focus on just
01:07:42the explicitly eugenics motivated laws.
01:07:45We most frequently contemplate.
01:07:47I think,
01:07:47particularly in bioethics,
01:07:50but we we focus on that a lot,
01:07:55but instead to take a rather broader
01:07:57lens and consider the laws that
01:08:00worked in concert with eugenics,
01:08:02and more broadly, consider.
01:08:03Race law in the United States,
01:08:05so with apologies for those of
01:08:07you who look forward to a deeper
01:08:09dive into eugenics law,
01:08:10I purposely shifted to a broader lens.
01:08:14Similarly or in the same vein,
01:08:16some people may consider the story
01:08:18of the US law out US race law and
01:08:21think somewhat narrowly about the Jim
01:08:23Crow South in cases like Plessy V.
01:08:26Ferguson and Brown V.
01:08:27Board of Education.
01:08:28But the story of race law is much
01:08:30more than that in the United States
01:08:32and it's a web of complex forces
01:08:33which I won't be able to cover,
01:08:35and any academically rigorous
01:08:37way in 30 minutes.
01:08:39But I want to be certain to recognize
01:08:41that race law and its influence on
01:08:43Nazi Germany is more than Jim Crow.
01:08:45And more than eugenics, its immigration,
01:08:48its other ways in which U.S.
01:08:49law is structured that privileges,
01:08:53those that have already enjoyed
01:08:54power since beginning of our
01:08:56country and in placing.
01:08:58Eugenics and Jim Crow and hopefully
01:09:01taking a broader lens to I hope that
01:09:04I can bring to our discussion today
01:09:07a fuller picture of what eugenics
01:09:09and Jim Crow and all in some of
01:09:12these other laws and forces at play
01:09:14in the United States were animated,
01:09:17by which I would conclude,
01:09:19are there both there,
01:09:20driven by a desire to maintain
01:09:23power by a dominant group?
01:09:25So,
01:09:26having said all of that,
01:09:27in recognition of the wonderfully
01:09:30cross disciplinary audience that
01:09:31the bioethics program always draws
01:09:34most of my remarks today will be
01:09:37more descriptive than normative.
01:09:39I want to share the story without
01:09:42affirmatively posing a thesis today,
01:09:44but rather,
01:09:45I hope to pose some questions and raise
01:09:49issues that may teach us about U.S.
01:09:52law and US legal norms, then,
01:09:55and what that means about U.S.
01:09:57law. And legal norms today.
01:10:00So I would be and I would be pleased
01:10:02to unpack some of those questions and
01:10:04talk about it more in our discussion.
01:10:07Our panel discussion at the end.
01:10:10So.
01:10:13I just want to say that in that research
01:10:16that I mentioned a another professor
01:10:19at Yale Law School, James Whitman,
01:10:21wanted a book that that of his was very
01:10:25influential and my sort of updating
01:10:28research and I pulled a quote from his
01:10:31book that says the Nazis let us all
01:10:33agree would have committed monstrous
01:10:35crimes regardless of how intriguing and
01:10:38attractive they found American race law.
01:10:40But how did it come to pass?
01:10:42That America produced law that seemed
01:10:45intriguing and attractive to Nazis,
01:10:47and so that's the you know.
01:10:49I think that was just a great framing to
01:10:52say that in our discussion I'm I don't
01:10:55intend to say that it was somehow, you know,
01:10:58all the USS fault that we are responsible.
01:11:03For the Holocaust and border Nazi
01:11:06adoption of these eugenic practices.
01:11:09But rather that we still have some things
01:11:11to learn and that can be at a moment to
01:11:14sort of reflect upon how we got there.
01:11:18So how I I would like to tackle
01:11:21that together today I want to talk
01:11:23a little bit about three types,
01:11:2633 main things to hit on,
01:11:28Jim Crow and Anti Massage Nation laws,
01:11:30eugenics and forced sterilization
01:11:32and immigration policy.
01:11:33All first in the US and then to turn to.
01:11:38After that, how the role in the US?
01:11:40We see evidence of its
01:11:43role in what the path to.
01:11:48At the Holocaust.
01:11:53So Jim Crow to just to make sure that
01:11:55we're all using the same language
01:11:56and talking about the same things,
01:11:58first want to mention that Jim Crow
01:12:01laws as we very broadly define them.
01:12:03They certainly weren't limited to
01:12:05the South United States, so we often
01:12:07talk about quote the Jim Crow South.
01:12:09They were broadly defined as state
01:12:12and local laws, legalizing inter
01:12:14mandating racial segregation.
01:12:17Similarly or animated by the same motives
01:12:22into miscegenation laws or state laws
01:12:24that prohibited interracial marriage
01:12:26and our interracial sexual relations.
01:12:28And while Jim Crow laws are
01:12:31sort of more broadly defined,
01:12:33so hard to nail down what states
01:12:36had which laws.
01:12:3730 States definitively adopted
01:12:39such laws in the United States.
01:12:45So we have the legislators, of course,
01:12:48and and in the United States,
01:12:49both of the types of laws that I mentioned
01:12:52were state laws that can be challenged.
01:12:54Their constitutionality can be challenged
01:12:55by the federal and the federal courts,
01:12:57and so the case that many people
01:13:00think of is Plessy be Ferguson,
01:13:03in which a Louisiana law.
01:13:06Louisiana enacted a separate car Act,
01:13:08which required separate railway
01:13:10cars for blacks and whites in 1892.
01:13:13Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 Caucasian.
01:13:17He agreed to participate in a
01:13:19test case to challenge the act.
01:13:22He was asked to board the train
01:13:25and refused to move, which he did.
01:13:30So at trial,
01:13:31his lawyers argued that the act
01:13:34violated the 13th and 14th amendments.
01:13:39And the US Supreme Court holds that
01:13:41there's they uphold the law, say that
01:13:43it doesn't violate the US Constitution.
01:13:45And so the Jim Crow era of segregation
01:13:48continues, and the separate
01:13:50but equal is enshrined in U.S.
01:13:53law until the other landmark
01:13:54case that we often speak of the
01:13:56Brown V Board of Education,
01:13:57which didn't come along until 1954.
01:14:03So, concurrently or along a different path
01:14:07and timeline will walk through a little bit.
01:14:11Eugenics is taking off across the world,
01:14:14and so a little brief note
01:14:18on the history of eugenics.
01:14:20The term eugenics was coined by
01:14:23British scientist Francis Galton,
01:14:25who was very influenced by Darwin's
01:14:27theory of natural selection.
01:14:29He advocated for a system that would allow.
01:14:32The more suitable races or strains of blood,
01:14:35a better chance of prevailing
01:14:37speedily over the less suitable.
01:14:40So during the early 1900s,
01:14:44eugenics became a more
01:14:46serious scientific study,
01:14:47pursued both by biologists
01:14:51and social scientists.
01:14:54Eugenicists advocated for
01:14:56governmental interventions,
01:14:58including laws and policies that
01:15:01would give the state direct
01:15:03influence over reproduction in the
01:15:06pursuit of eugenic quote goals.
01:15:09And as I'm sure there's no surprise to most
01:15:12people here that included the United States.
01:15:16So among other eugenic initiatives
01:15:18there were, there was research
01:15:20happening across the country.
01:15:22I've just pulled out two leaders in the
01:15:25eugenics movement in the United States.
01:15:27The Eugenics Record Office was founded
01:15:30in 1911 by a respected biologist,
01:15:33Charles Davenport,
01:15:34seen here on the left,
01:15:36and Harry Laughlin on the right.
01:15:37A leading figure of the US eugenics.
01:15:39Movement who worked with him.
01:15:41Laughlin was particularly influential
01:15:43and advocacy for eugenic policies.
01:15:46In 1922,
01:15:47he wrote the eugenical
01:15:49sterilization in the United States,
01:15:52the cover of which you see on
01:15:54this slide that serves as model
01:15:56legislation for states to adopt.
01:15:57So this we even see this today.
01:15:58It still happens that usually
01:16:01lawyers work together to create
01:16:03legislation that different states can.
01:16:06Adopt to address things that are part
01:16:09of the purview of the of state law.
01:16:11So this model of it,
01:16:14he said,
01:16:15was motivated in part by the fact
01:16:17that most states that had already
01:16:19adopted for sterilization laws early
01:16:22did not vigorously enforce them.
01:16:23So Laughlin was of the mind that
01:16:26there was something inadequate
01:16:27about the state laws that were
01:16:29already surfacing by 1922,
01:16:31and so proposed this model that
01:16:34he thought would be better.
01:16:36He thought that much of the state
01:16:39sterilization legislation was poorly worded,
01:16:41constitutionally ambiguous.
01:16:42The ambiguous and unclear as
01:16:44to which part of the state was
01:16:47responsible for its enforcement.
01:16:4918 states adopted laughlins model.
01:16:54So what exactly are we talking about when
01:16:57we talk about forced sterilization laws?
01:17:01What do they do as a threshold matter,
01:17:05exerting eugenic control in the United States
01:17:07required defining the groups of people who
01:17:10are the appropriate objects of control.
01:17:12So sort of a political definition of
01:17:15the types of people who were less fit,
01:17:18as as was discussed at the time.
01:17:22So this was another component
01:17:25of Laughlin's work,
01:17:26and as you can see here from his model
01:17:29legislation criteria that he included
01:17:32were the feeble minded insane criminals,
01:17:35epileptics, Alcoholics,
01:17:37blind person, deaf persons,
01:17:39deformed persons,
01:17:41and indigent persons.
01:17:43And that those people who were part
01:17:46of that those categories would
01:17:50warrant compulsory sterilization.
01:17:52Of course,
01:17:53or I don't want to take it for granted
01:17:56that people realize that this there
01:17:58was a vastly disproportionate number
01:18:00of those who fell victim to eugenics.
01:18:02Sterilizations and initiatives
01:18:04were women and women specifically,
01:18:07who identified as African American,
01:18:09Hispanic, or Native American.
01:18:10So a lot of states enacted these laws
01:18:13during the time that they were in effect,
01:18:16more than
01:18:1860,000 US people were forcibly sterilized,
01:18:22and. Sometimes I think it's easy
01:18:24to to assume that was, you know,
01:18:27relic of the past nine states did not repeal
01:18:31their forced sterilization laws until 1980.
01:18:35So how can that be? Must this?
01:18:36You know it we saw that Plessy V Ferguson,
01:18:39the railway car law was challenged
01:18:42by in the Supreme Court.
01:18:44Didn't wasn't this challenge
01:18:45in the Supreme Court?
01:18:46And the answer is yes.
01:18:47And this is also a well
01:18:50known Supreme Court case.
01:18:51Called Buck Feval that happened in 1927
01:18:55and similar to the Toplistky Bergeson,
01:19:00we see that the court upholds this
01:19:03practice in Virginia and this
01:19:06note here was the original sort
01:19:08of title reference to nor folk.
01:19:10If anybody is curious.
01:19:13Bird, so Virginia was one state
01:19:16that adopted Laughlin's model.
01:19:18When it passed a sterilization
01:19:20lonely two years after he published
01:19:22the Model Act in 1924.
01:19:26And so that's the the law that
01:19:27got made it to the Supreme Court.
01:19:30When Carrie Buck became the object
01:19:32of the states eugenic control,
01:19:34Carrie was born into poverty and was
01:19:37separated from her family at and at
01:19:4010 she was put in foster care and
01:19:43she was raped by a relative in the
01:19:46family that were appointed to get to
01:19:49care for her as her foster parents.
01:19:53She upon becoming.
01:19:54Pregnant was sent to a group home of
01:19:59Virginia Colony as they called them
01:20:03when her pregnancy became obvious,
01:20:05Carrie was 16.
01:20:07And and in Avid group of eugenicist
01:20:12pursued Carrie Carrie's plight
01:20:15to test the newly enacted
01:20:17eugenical sterilization law,
01:20:18which allowed the sexual
01:20:19sterilization of mental defectives,
01:20:21so they sought uniquely in Virginia.
01:20:24They sought out a test
01:20:26case to challenge in court,
01:20:27actually before they sterilize anyone.
01:20:31So they took the carries case to the
01:20:36court in part to make sure before
01:20:40they started in active sterilization
01:20:42campaign that the court would uphold it.
01:20:45There's really nothing terribly
01:20:47atypical about Terry Book,
01:20:50and she found herself at the mercy of
01:20:53multiple justices on the Supreme Court
01:20:55who were active members of the national
01:20:58Eugenics movement in an 8 to one decision,
01:21:01which these days is
01:21:03sometimes hard to think of,
01:21:05something that's as a charged would
01:21:09have such an overwhelming majority.
01:21:13Oliver Wendell Holmes famously states
01:21:15that quote 3 generations of imbeciles
01:21:18is enough in his conclusion that state
01:21:21mandated sterilization is justified.
01:21:22Public health measure.
01:21:23Carrie Buck is seen here with her mother,
01:21:26who is also deemed feebleminded.
01:21:30So that's the story of Carrie Buck and it's,
01:21:33uh, uh,
01:21:33the case that upheld US sterilization laws,
01:21:37notably.
01:21:38Buck V.
01:21:39Bell was not explicitly overruled
01:21:42and is arguably still good law today.
01:21:45Not good thought,
01:21:46but law in the United States.
01:21:49So the other area we see influencing eugenics
01:21:53laws in Nazi Germany isn't in immigration.
01:21:58In 1924,
01:21:59Congress passed and President Calvin Coolidge
01:22:02signed the Immigration Restriction Act,
01:22:04growing xenophobia,
01:22:05fueled in part by the influx of
01:22:08immigrants following World War One.
01:22:10Specifically,
01:22:10Jews and Italians.
01:22:12Concurrent with the growing
01:22:14acceptance of eugenics led to new
01:22:17motives for immigration laws,
01:22:18previously immigration laws were
01:22:20principally concerned with labor and
01:22:22the workers competing for American
01:22:24jobs and Immigration Restriction
01:22:26Act made clear that immigration was
01:22:28viewed as a threat to the country's
01:22:31genetic well being and was devised
01:22:33with the intent to quote combat the
01:22:35rising tide of defective germplasm,
01:22:38the law imposed numerical quotas on
01:22:40the number of foreign born individuals,
01:22:42a given nationality.
01:22:43Who were permitted to lawfully
01:22:46enter the United States?
01:22:50USU Genesis not only supported,
01:22:53but drafted and testified in
01:22:56favor of this legislation.
01:22:58In particular, Laughlin was
01:23:00instrumental in drafting it.
01:23:06So. As Professor Whitman notes in his book.
01:23:12America, he concludes after
01:23:15looking at this same.
01:23:18Legal landscape that America and
01:23:19early 20th century was a leading
01:23:21racist jurisdiction in the world,
01:23:23which is a difficult claim to make,
01:23:26but and sometimes uncomfortable
01:23:27for us to think about.
01:23:29But an important history for us to
01:23:31grapple with on days like today.
01:23:37So now that we've sort of taken a
01:23:40look at what was going on in the
01:23:43United States and let's turn now to
01:23:46see the way in which that influence
01:23:49we have evidence of the way that
01:23:52that influenced what it was going on.
01:23:54In Nazi Germany.
01:23:55So the first law that we that will
01:23:58I picked out to draw that line is
01:24:00the law of for the prevention of
01:24:04genetically diseased offspring
01:24:05which was passed in 1934.
01:24:07So ten years after Virginia passed
01:24:09its sterilization law and seven
01:24:11years after the US Supreme Court
01:24:13upheld it in Buck V Bell.
01:24:15And after the earliest adopted eugenics
01:24:17laws had been in in the United States
01:24:20had been in effect for 27 years.
01:24:22Nazi Germany passed a law of the prevention
01:24:25of genetically diseased offspring.
01:24:28It mandated for sterilization
01:24:30of certain individuals with
01:24:31physical and mental disabilities,
01:24:33and it was designed after the
01:24:35model eugenics sterilization
01:24:36lot developed by Laughlin.
01:24:37So not only did US 18 U.S.
01:24:40states adopt it,
01:24:42Germany relied upon his work.
01:24:44It was also influenced a lot by
01:24:46California sterilization law,
01:24:47and that's because California was a
01:24:50state that most aggressively enforces
01:24:52compulsory sterilization laws.
01:24:53It was also one of the earliest
01:24:55adopters of a compulsory.
01:24:58Socialization law and passed it in 1909.
01:25:03It was the essential basis for the
01:25:05development of the German sterilization law,
01:25:07specifically a study by the President of the
01:25:10primary eugenics organization in California,
01:25:12the Human Betterment Foundation.
01:25:14Different states had organizations
01:25:15like this peppered across the country.
01:25:18It was a study led by ES Gosney,
01:25:21who seen on the right and Paul Pompian.
01:25:24They claimed that after examining
01:25:276000 sterilized people,
01:25:28the operation have led to
01:25:30a decline in sex crimes.
01:25:32They sent a brochure.
01:25:34Detailing California's experiences to
01:25:36German racial hygienists and not the
01:25:39administrators who were responsible
01:25:41for the enforcement of the German law.
01:25:44It claimed sterilization served
01:25:46to protect the sterilized person.
01:25:49His or her family and society at large.
01:25:52They viewed the German sterilization law
01:25:54as a fulfillment of the principles that
01:25:56were developed by the California program.
01:26:02And then another place that
01:26:04we see the US influences the
01:26:07Nerber race laws of 1934 per 35,
01:26:09which provided the legal framework for the
01:26:12systemic persecution of Jews in Germany.
01:26:14So there was a city.
01:26:16Very simplistically,
01:26:17there were three components
01:26:19to the number of race laws,
01:26:21one that involved the swastika is
01:26:23part of becoming part of the flag.
01:26:25Citizenship law that reduced dues
01:26:27to second class citizenship status
01:26:29in Germany and the blood law,
01:26:30which criminalizes interracial
01:26:31marriage and sex.
01:26:36One of the really interesting contributions
01:26:39to the fields that Whitman Book
01:26:41makes is a discussion of this meeting
01:26:44in Nazi Germany of leading lawyers
01:26:46that took place in June 5th, 1934.
01:26:49They were charged with beginning to
01:26:51craft race laws for Nazi Germany,
01:26:53and they convened to respond to demands
01:26:56of raid radical Nazis for the creation.
01:27:00Of a new kind of race state.
01:27:02So there was a stenographer present
01:27:05who reported the proceedings verbatim
01:27:06and at that meeting on June 5th,
01:27:09the Member there was a memorandum
01:27:11discussed by the Minister of
01:27:12Justice who which was accompanied by
01:27:14a list which that detailed.
01:27:16The anti missile donation
01:27:18provisions found in all 30 of this.
01:27:20the US states that had them the
01:27:22law of these states were discussed
01:27:25in detail and as Whitman put it,
01:27:26I would almost say excruciating detail.
01:27:30They were really looking to see what
01:27:32they could learn for the from the US.
01:27:36Uhm? At the meeting.
01:27:41As you can see from the James Whitman take,
01:27:45they were mystified at how a country
01:27:47so clearly dedicated to white supremacy
01:27:49could also have something like the
01:27:5114th Amendment and Constitution,
01:27:53which guarantees equal rights
01:27:55to American citizens,
01:27:56among whom after the civil war
01:27:59were to be counted and the freed
01:28:02black people of the South, so.
01:28:07This is just a quick note for any of
01:28:09you who are legal scholars online on
01:28:11the on for in our discussion today.
01:28:13You know it wasn't just the laws,
01:28:16meaning the legislatively passed statutes,
01:28:19but the entire framework,
01:28:21entire operation of the common law
01:28:24in the United States that was also
01:28:28attractive to German lawyers as
01:28:30they contemplated how to build this
01:28:32new type of race state.
01:28:36So if we work also more carefully at
01:28:40the influence specifically of Jim Crow.
01:28:43The Jim Crow era laws that discriminate
01:28:45against black Americans, Americans
01:28:47and segregated that segregated them.
01:28:51There was a document called the
01:28:54President's Memorandum specifically
01:28:56in that specifically invoked Jim Crow
01:28:59as a model for the new Nazi program.
01:29:03It also, however, insisted that
01:29:05Jim Crow went further than the
01:29:08Nazis themselves would want to go.
01:29:10They the most radical Nazis aim to
01:29:14ban public socialization between
01:29:16the races but not in private.
01:29:18They went on to observe that the Americans
01:29:21went even further than public interactions,
01:29:24banning interactions even in private.
01:29:26And at this meeting of the
01:29:28attorney of these German lawyers,
01:29:30there was a lot of disagreement over
01:29:33whether something like Jim Crow segregation
01:29:35was appropriate for Nazi Germany.
01:29:38Interesting, interesting.
01:29:41Observation by someone at
01:29:43the meeting was that.
01:29:46Jews are just much too rich and powerful.
01:29:48Segregation of the Jim Crow kind
01:29:50could really only be effective
01:29:52against a population that was
01:29:55already oppressed and impoverished,
01:29:57which you know,
01:29:58I think,
01:29:59is also a difficult reflection to
01:30:01have about how we reconcile our
01:30:04history in the United States of
01:30:07slavery and racism and what that says
01:30:11about our legal structures today.
01:30:17We could also look at the
01:30:19explicit ties to immigration law.
01:30:22As you can see the quote here from
01:30:26a sympathetic. Not not. See doctor.
01:30:28The Americans have begun to think about
01:30:31the maintenance of race purity and
01:30:33thus to ask not only about eugenics,
01:30:36but also about membership
01:30:38and individual races.
01:30:39It can be seen in their immigration
01:30:41laws which completely forbid
01:30:42the immigration of yellows,
01:30:44meaning Asians and place immigration from
01:30:46European countries under sharp supervision.
01:30:49The mayor can knows very well
01:30:51who made his land great.
01:30:53He sees that the Nordic blood is
01:30:55drying up and seeks to refresh that.
01:30:57Blood through his immigration legislation.
01:31:00It also so we have the the laws that
01:31:02I talked about already about the
01:31:04quotas that were enacted in the United
01:31:07States when it came to immigration,
01:31:09but in general.
01:31:12The German Nazis that were contemplating
01:31:14building this race date borrowed US
01:31:16political definitions and concepts of race,
01:31:19not just input and and they use
01:31:21this not just in writing the laws,
01:31:23but even in implementing them.
01:31:25So for example,
01:31:26in the United States there was
01:31:28a cable act as something found
01:31:31throughout the world at the time
01:31:33it dealt with a problem of the day.
01:31:36So according to traditional
01:31:39legal definitions,
01:31:40a married woman acquired the citizenship.
01:31:42Of her husband and lost
01:31:44her native citizenship.
01:31:46This the rule was abrogated
01:31:48everywhere in the 20th century,
01:31:51and it was abrogated the United States 2,
01:31:53but the cable act included an exception,
01:31:57although women retain their American
01:31:59citizenship ordinarily when they
01:32:01marry and not American citizen
01:32:02if they stoop so low as to marry
01:32:05a Japanese person or an Asian,
01:32:06they have to be deprived of
01:32:08their citizenship in that case.
01:32:09So the cable law did the work
01:32:11of sort of defining categories.
01:32:13In this way.
01:32:14It's it's it really illustrates the way that.
01:32:16We have made this political definition
01:32:19of a racial construct that we use
01:32:21to sort out who is the target of
01:32:23particular eugenic controls in
01:32:25the United States.
01:32:26So it's almost borrowing from the
01:32:29methodology that we see embedded in U.S.
01:32:31law to inform the way the Germans are
01:32:34thinking about how they will define
01:32:36who should be the object of their
01:32:39eugenic and ultimately genocidal control.
01:32:45So again, we I I might buzz over
01:32:47this a little bit since we already
01:32:49talked about the eugenic laws that
01:32:51preceded the Nuremberg race laws.
01:32:55But just to say that.
01:32:57The Germans really thought that the
01:33:00Americans had done something great and
01:33:03cited Buck V Bell as this example of how
01:33:06we could uphold how the US system was.
01:33:10You know, claiming to be all about equality.
01:33:14They had this way to uphold eugenics laws.
01:33:22And there is, you know, evidence
01:33:23that Hitler specifically talked about
01:33:27eugenics and the way that the United
01:33:30States implemented eugenic laws.
01:33:35So dumb. That's sort of a what
01:33:37happened and how we see that evidence.
01:33:40So what does that tell us that the
01:33:42United States and obviously and you
01:33:44know the valence of eugenics changed
01:33:46drastically as the Holocaust played out?
01:33:48So what happened after that?
01:33:49What do we see now?
01:33:50What happened in the aftermath?
01:33:52And I will try to be brief.
01:33:54So the first thing that we see
01:33:55is the first example that's often
01:33:57pointed to is Skinner V. Oklahoma.
01:33:59In this case, Oklahoma passed.
01:34:01Allow a law that allowed the state
01:34:03to sterilize a person who had been
01:34:05convicted 3 or more times of crimes.
01:34:07Amounting to felonies involving
01:34:09quote moral turpitude.
01:34:11So, after a third conviction
01:34:12after he stole a chicken once,
01:34:14and a was convicted of armed robbery twice,
01:34:18Jack Skinner was ordered to be sterilized.
01:34:23The way that this came and the
01:34:25Supreme Court struck down this law.
01:34:26It's important to note note,
01:34:28though,
01:34:28that this law a does not overturn
01:34:30Buckley Bell because it was a a
01:34:32decision that didn't explicitly do so,
01:34:34and it was about a criminal statute,
01:34:37and it was specifically about
01:34:39treating some criminals.
01:34:40White collar crime criminals differently
01:34:43than criminals who were found guilty
01:34:46of crimes of moral turpitude.
01:34:48So while we see that this seems
01:34:51like progress, and to be fair,
01:34:53is it's not, it's still doesn't resolve.
01:34:55From the issues that we've seen at
01:34:58that we've discussed previously.
01:35:02Similarly, in the years
01:35:03between it's for sterilization
01:35:05continues in the United States,
01:35:07if not explicitly.
01:35:09We see it in the years between 97,
01:35:12nineteen, 97 and 2010.
01:35:14Unwanted sterilizations were
01:35:16performed on approximately 1400
01:35:17women in California prisons.
01:35:21And there was a a case that was litigated
01:35:26and in that litigation process discovery
01:35:30process it was found that you know
01:35:34many more people had been sterilized.
01:35:39And the US doctor.
01:35:41the US District Court prohibited
01:35:43the use of federal dollars for
01:35:45involuntary sterilizations in the
01:35:47practice of threatening women on
01:35:48welfare with the loss of their
01:35:50benefits if they refused to comply.
01:35:52And the the Ralph case was
01:35:54about a mother who took her.
01:35:58Children to get out of birth.
01:35:59Good thinking she was taking them to
01:36:01get a birth control shot, shot and
01:36:03were instead surgically sterilized.
01:36:08Most recently we've we saw a recent
01:36:11allegation about core sterilization
01:36:13of immigrant women in the Irwin
01:36:16County Detention Center in Georgia.
01:36:18The complaint asserts that officials
01:36:21transferred detainees to the
01:36:22physician who sterilized women without
01:36:24proper informed consent, and that
01:36:26whistleblower in this case was a nurse.
01:36:28So again, we just see.
01:36:31What does this tell us?
01:36:33Similarly, you know what do we see
01:36:36about Jim Crow and and remnants of
01:36:39Jim Crow and voting restrictions as
01:36:42the Voting Rights Act seems to be
01:36:45further gutted by the Supreme Court
01:36:48with each term that they take a case.
01:36:51And people have conjectured
01:36:52how it Harkins back.
01:36:53Those laws hearken back to Jim Crow.
01:36:58Uhm? So again, I,
01:37:01I guess I just throw up some difficult
01:37:03questions for us to ponder today
01:37:06that would attracted Nancy Lorez,
01:37:08not just American racism,
01:37:09but American legal culture.
01:37:10And that means that we must face some
01:37:13uncomfortable questions about the value
01:37:14of the American way of doing things.
01:37:16So the most striking and
01:37:18inescapable questions have to do
01:37:20with the common law tradition.
01:37:22And I won't read the whole quote
01:37:23to you guys, but.
01:37:26Again, it's it's looking at how our
01:37:29system works and how even if we
01:37:31have some of the eugenic explicitly
01:37:33eugenic laws off the books,
01:37:36or that it would not be
01:37:39a politically palatable.
01:37:41Way of doing things today?
01:37:43What undercurrents remain in
01:37:45our legal system?
01:37:47And how,
01:37:48how might those again perhaps
01:37:49come to pass that they would
01:37:52be attractive or intriguing?
01:37:53If not the Nazis,
01:37:55another group or just in our own country?
01:37:58So with those difficult questions,
01:38:02I'll conclude my remarks and thank
01:38:05Mark and Karen for putting together
01:38:07such a wonderful symposium and
01:38:10including me and the Solomon Center.
01:38:12And also to thank thank
01:38:14the Lindenthal family.
01:38:19Thank you so much Katie well.
01:38:24I said these talks were going
01:38:25to be strong and excellent.
01:38:27I didn't say they were going to
01:38:29be easy to hear and this is this
01:38:32has been some enlightening time.
01:38:34What I want to do next.
01:38:36If we could please is go to the panel.
01:38:40So now while the panel all make
01:38:43their way to the front of the room.
01:38:45This gives you guys a couple
01:38:47minutes to formulate some questions,
01:38:48so this is where those of
01:38:49you in the audience.
01:38:50If you have a question or
01:38:52comment to the speakers for the
01:38:54last three speakers we had to.
01:38:56To doctor Demetrius or attorney
01:38:59Heinrich or attorney Kraschel,
01:39:01now would be the chance to put them in.
01:39:02Please put them through the Q&A part
01:39:05of the zoom function so we'll have a
01:39:07discussion for the next half hour or so,
01:39:09and then we'll break for a few minutes
01:39:11before we move to Doctor Hughes talk.
01:39:13So I'm going to take the prerogative
01:39:15of the first question and.
01:39:18You know it was.
01:39:19These were three marvelous thoughts on
01:39:21Katie at the very last thing you said.
01:39:23The last quote you gave us.
01:39:24How did it come to pass?
01:39:26And of course,
01:39:27this gets to you know,
01:39:28this ties us right back to the very
01:39:30beginning of Eveline conversation
01:39:31and it gets to you know what
01:39:34what we've called again.
01:39:35It's funny.
01:39:36I used the analogy of a morbidity
01:39:38and mortality.
01:39:39Certainly these episodes of
01:39:40genocide and race laws and other
01:39:43things are colossal examples of
01:39:45both morbidity and mortality,
01:39:47but within within the medical model of that.
01:39:50As we try to get to the root cause
01:39:52of of what brought this and and
01:39:54Evelyn's comments about the root cause,
01:39:56the psychological things and the
01:39:58sociological things that can go into
01:40:00that as well as the the legal background.
01:40:02Which is some of which I knew,
01:40:04and some of which was new to me,
01:40:05and all of which is very sobering.
01:40:08I guess my my first question I would
01:40:11take I would send to you Katie please
01:40:14and that would be just very simply.
01:40:16I was as you're talking and I was
01:40:19unaware of the case from 1977.
01:40:20Was it the rough case and I thought,
01:40:23Oh my God is that stuff still going on?
01:40:25And then of course in your next slide
01:40:27you talked about the ice case from 2020.
01:40:30These things hopefully are far less
01:40:32frequently happening in the United States,
01:40:34but the fact that you tell us that Buck
01:40:36V Bell is still has not been clearly
01:40:39overturned by the Supreme Court.
01:40:41I was assuming hoping that perhaps
01:40:42that's because this is no longer
01:40:44an issue in the United States and
01:40:46so in a case hasn't come before,
01:40:48the Supreme Court,
01:40:49would you say that based on more
01:40:52recent events that it's still an issue
01:40:54and that this is something that they
01:40:56should be directly addressed at the
01:40:57highest court levels in in the US?
01:41:01I mean, I so I think so.
01:41:03One of the one of the challenges
01:41:05with something like this in general
01:41:07is that since the Supreme Court is
01:41:09a court of limited jurisdiction in
01:41:11the United States and that there
01:41:13has to be a case or controversy for
01:41:15the US for Kate to for a case to
01:41:19get through the US legal system.
01:41:22You know, some might say that it
01:41:24hasn't been overturned because there's
01:41:26not a plaintiff who could say I've
01:41:28been harmed by a law like this,
01:41:30which would suggest that the
01:41:31reason why there's not a plaintiff
01:41:33is because it's not happening.
01:41:35So that's sort of 1 explanation
01:41:37of why Buck V.
01:41:38Bell is still not explicitly
01:41:40overturned under U.S.
01:41:42law, so I'll just.
01:41:43Sort of put a pin in that to be
01:41:46sure that I have sort of made that
01:41:48disclaimer in my remarks today.
01:41:51But I think it is happening
01:41:53and it's happening to the most
01:41:56marginalized and vulnerable.
01:41:58People in our society,
01:42:00it's immigrants, and for it was
01:42:02for black women and in the other case.
01:42:06And so I think that it's.
01:42:08Like so many other conversations,
01:42:11I think,
01:42:11and it difficult conversations
01:42:13in the United States about race.
01:42:16It's maybe night,
01:42:17not something that's right
01:42:18in front of our faces,
01:42:20but something that's going on in a way.
01:42:26That we have to be mindful of and
01:42:28make sure that everyone has a
01:42:31voice to advocate for themselves,
01:42:32and if that directly answers
01:42:33your question, mark. No,
01:42:36I appreciate it it it does.
01:42:37I appreciate that.
01:42:40Person strikes me and there's there's a
01:42:42spectrum of ages I suspect on the call,
01:42:43but 1977 I think there's a lot
01:42:45of people on the call who can
01:42:47remember where we were in 1977
01:42:48and amazed at how ignorant we
01:42:50were that this stuff was going on.
01:42:52And of course, as you say,
01:42:54these things are star.
01:42:55These issues are far from settled.
01:42:59Evelyn, I wanted to ask you a question
01:43:02please based on your presentation.
01:43:04You talked it was.
01:43:05It was really fascinating the the idea
01:43:08of competitive victimhood and the idea
01:43:10of paranoia somehow feeding into this
01:43:12and the fear that we need to strike
01:43:14first before another group strikes us.
01:43:16The the sense of victimhood.
01:43:18And of course a you know,
01:43:20a a refrain that I think to Americans
01:43:23we hear often when we think of this
01:43:26in recent years is the refrain.
01:43:28Jews will not replace us.
01:43:30You're likely familiar with
01:43:32that from Charlottesville.
01:43:33Not very long ago.
01:43:34In our history and the sense
01:43:37that again a sense of victimhood.
01:43:40And I guess what I want to ask
01:43:42is if do you feel that this plays
01:43:45into the anti-Semitism that's still
01:43:46seen in the Europe and the US?
01:43:48This sense of victimhood.
01:43:49Do you think this is an active
01:43:51player in what's going on now?
01:43:56That is a
01:43:57thank you. Accidentally a very
01:43:59difficult question to answer.
01:44:01I think it's yes. Yes, yes it does.
01:44:06But also it does.
01:44:07I think is dumb. Some kind of?
01:44:13Moral capital that is usually
01:44:17and rightfully so assigned to
01:44:21victims of mass atrocities.
01:44:24What happens in the case
01:44:25of the Holocaust as well,
01:44:29is that and it's not an isolated case.
01:44:32And victims of mass atrocities
01:44:38tend to compete.
01:44:41Among themselves
01:44:44for some type of.
01:44:48Greater suffering. Uhm it.
01:44:51Casts upon victims of mass atrocities.
01:44:56Some kind of. And. Let's say.
01:45:04Doubt on their innocence.
01:45:06That may as well feed into anti-Semitism.
01:45:10So I would say indeed there is, UM,
01:45:16the objective victim ITI of, or victimhood.
01:45:22Of victimized groups,
01:45:25and then on the other side, UM,
01:45:28what you mentioned still is some type of.
01:45:33Paranoia linked to those group.
01:45:36That is, I think,
01:45:37also fed by the competition
01:45:40between these groups.
01:45:42If it answers your question,
01:45:45thank you. Thank you. Yes.
01:45:48The next question from the from the
01:45:50audience is directed at at for for you.
01:45:52For Katie crash, all the science
01:45:54of eugenics and science written
01:45:56quotes was the science of the day,
01:45:58not just in the US in Germany,
01:46:00does this shake our belief in science?
01:46:09That's a big question.
01:46:11I think that rather than shake our
01:46:13belief in science, it should.
01:46:20Strengthen our conviction at the need to be.
01:46:25Critical of our scientific inquiries and not
01:46:30just the results and how they're interpreted,
01:46:32but also what informs the way
01:46:35that we ask certain questions.
01:46:37And I think that, UM.
01:46:40Andrew actually mentioned social determinants
01:46:41of health a few times during his remarks,
01:46:44and I think that's one of the
01:46:46first things that I think about.
01:46:47You know when I think about
01:46:49particularly studies that, for example,
01:46:51make claims about race based.
01:46:53Difference is where today I think it's
01:46:57incumbent upon us as consumers of science.
01:47:00If that's such a,
01:47:01that's a thing that we think critically about
01:47:05why questions are posed in a certain way,
01:47:08and we don't leap.
01:47:10To make conclusions about
01:47:13causation with every correlation.
01:47:15And I think about some of what we've seen.
01:47:18And as COVID has played out,
01:47:20that perhaps if you see a headline
01:47:22that says there is a racial difference
01:47:25in the prevalence of COVID,
01:47:26or how likely you are to contract
01:47:30COVID if you unpack that.
01:47:32It's not that there is some sort of
01:47:36biological racial difference necessarily,
01:47:38it's that there are social
01:47:40determinants of health.
01:47:42That mean that in this country black and
01:47:44brown people have different access to care,
01:47:47work,
01:47:47different jobs and so live in different
01:47:50areas and so are are more reliant on
01:47:54different types of transportation and
01:47:56so those other drivers are probably
01:47:59what's making those disparities so stark.
01:48:02So I think what I take away from, you know,
01:48:08thinking about eugenics is a science is.
01:48:11Are it's incumbent upon us to be
01:48:13very critical and thinking about,
01:48:15particularly in the case of?
01:48:19Studies that look to identify difference.
01:48:22What motivates asking the question
01:48:24in that way? How are we asked?
01:48:26What are we?
01:48:27What?
01:48:27Why are we asking the question in that way?
01:48:30And are we looking at all of the right
01:48:32variables and designing that experiment?
01:48:36Thank you as a as a former biochemistry
01:48:38major myself as an undergraduate,
01:48:40I think that that your legal scholarship
01:48:42certainly informs your answer greatly,
01:48:44but I like to think that that your
01:48:46undergraduate training in biochemistry
01:48:47fed a little bit into that understanding.
01:48:49The difference between
01:48:50causation and correlation,
01:48:51which is which is hugely important
01:48:53as an excellent thank you, Andrew,
01:48:55I'd like to move to you if I could please,
01:48:58and here is a question given.
01:48:59Given your expertise in both
01:49:00the law as well as history.
01:49:05And and. This is a question as fascinating.
01:49:08Do you think the US law also contributed
01:49:11to the establishment of apartheid in
01:49:13South Africa? Made legal in 1948?
01:49:18That is interesting,
01:49:18so it's not my direct area.
01:49:20It's a bit far South for
01:49:22where in Africa I study.
01:49:23I do know that there's work that's
01:49:25similar to Whitman's that has
01:49:27looked at sources of inspiration in,
01:49:30particularly in in antebellum.
01:49:33You asked from what I understand.
01:49:36So I think there's work that's
01:49:37looked at it from exactly the same
01:49:39perspective that women looked at the
01:49:40origins of of laws in Nazi Germany.
01:49:46Thank you another question please.
01:49:48It seems to me that cultural
01:49:50issues are another reason.
01:49:51The lessons from reconstruction after
01:49:53World War Two are limited as to
01:49:55applicability to recent conflicts,
01:49:57but there are definitely some differences.
01:49:59Germany is still a Western culture,
01:50:01whereas African and Middle Eastern
01:50:03cultures are more divergent from ours.
01:50:06Any thoughts on how to address that?
01:50:08I think that's a directed towards you.
01:50:09Also Andrew, please
01:50:11yeah, absolutely so.
01:50:12It's a good question, one that I
01:50:15was ironically asked yesterday and.
01:50:17Their other presentation, I think.
01:50:22I think often the differences between
01:50:27the reconstruction of Western
01:50:29culture and the reconstruction of
01:50:31a you know non Western culture.
01:50:33Let's call it broadly,
01:50:34are overstated in its impacts
01:50:37on the reconstruction process.
01:50:38I think that there are two.
01:50:41Issues to highlight.
01:50:44The first is.
01:50:46Lack of cultural awareness of
01:50:48those who are typically western,
01:50:50who are typically running the
01:50:52international institutions that get
01:50:53involved in the reconstruction process.
01:50:55I have a now colleague then Professor
01:51:00who taught me when I was in law school,
01:51:02who is part of the club as he would
01:51:05call it of people who hop around the
01:51:07world and writing new constitutions
01:51:09and post conflict States and I I see
01:51:12Catherine laughing as many lawyers know.
01:51:13It's kind of the same 30 or 40 characters,
01:51:16almost all Western.
01:51:16Almost all white men who hop from
01:51:18post conflict state to post conflict
01:51:20state writing the new constitution.
01:51:22And there are certain convergences
01:51:24of norms in those constitutions.
01:51:26For normative reasons,
01:51:27but also because the same people
01:51:29writing all of these constitution or
01:51:31contributing to the drafting of all
01:51:32these constitutions quite significantly.
01:51:34And I think that the lack of contextual
01:51:37awareness can create significant
01:51:39challenges in the adaptation
01:51:41of those often western norms.
01:51:44And so I think it it can.
01:51:45If you flip the problem as a lack
01:51:47of awareness from those doing
01:51:48the work on the outside,
01:51:50I think that's a significant problem.
01:51:52The second challenge that I think
01:51:54emerges and and it's astounding and
01:51:56it's been mocked in the American
01:51:58press when politicians in the
01:51:59past have had this challenge,
01:52:01but a lack of understanding of the
01:52:03roots of conflict as well because of
01:52:05cultural differences and the lack
01:52:07of understanding of the impact of
01:52:09colonialism on borders drawn and
01:52:11what those borders and division of
01:52:14groups create in way of fodder for conflict,
01:52:17I think also creates a very
01:52:20significant challenge.
01:52:22I don't necessarily think that.
01:52:25It's it's the case that,
01:52:27for example.
01:52:29This one culture is more or
01:52:31less equipped for reconstruction
01:52:32as we currently think of it,
01:52:34I think more that the context would.
01:52:37First of all,
01:52:38we would be best equipped to learn
01:52:39from the context, and secondly that.
01:52:43In which any reconstruction takes place,
01:52:45and secondly that the context might,
01:52:48if I, you know,
01:52:49use our my metaphor of the decision
01:52:51tree rather than a map for post
01:52:53conflict reconstruction might
01:52:54indicate some of the decisions
01:52:55made on that decision tree,
01:52:57or might might give us a good
01:52:58hint in which direction to go.
01:53:01Thank you.
01:53:04This question was for Attorney
01:53:07Kraschel and it gets to the
01:53:09importance of language barriers
01:53:10and for so many aspects of this.
01:53:12The question is, do you know
01:53:14of any information or research?
01:53:16Whoops, something just flipped on me.
01:53:17I apologize for that.
01:53:21Do you know of any?
01:53:21Well, I remember the question,
01:53:22I've just lost it here.
01:53:24Any information or research
01:53:25related to forced sterilization of
01:53:27women and or men in immigration,
01:53:29detention and language mediation,
01:53:30and particularly on our southern border?
01:53:33Is there any scholarship on that?
01:53:35You know, I'm not sure that
01:53:36there you know it was so recent.
01:53:38I'm not sure that there is yet.
01:53:39I just come. Yeah, I I won't pretend
01:53:43to know the answer to that question.
01:53:45Is there enough? I appreciate it.
01:53:46A quick comment by a very highly regarded
01:53:48physician in our state who knows that
01:53:51the science in quotes of eugenics was
01:53:53not what we would consider science.
01:53:56Another question for Doctor Demetrius.
01:54:00Forgive me if I misunderstand,
01:54:01but I fear that focus on psychological
01:54:04understanding of motivations
01:54:06of genocidal groups will fuel
01:54:08apologies for their actions, i.e.,
01:54:10if children in school are taught.
01:54:12The Germans committed atrocities
01:54:13because they resented Jews.
01:54:15Then children will internalize this
01:54:17as there was a reason for genocide.
01:54:25I'm not, yeah, I see that I'm I'm I'm
01:54:28not clear on this either exactly.
01:54:31Do you have response to that?
01:54:32I'd love to hear it, but.
01:54:34Uh, they read it again to give you like,
01:54:37I fear that focus on psychological
01:54:40understanding of motivations
01:54:41of genocidal groups will fuel
01:54:43apologies for their actions.
01:54:45Each if children in school are taught
01:54:47the Germans committed atrocities
01:54:49because they resented Jews,
01:54:50then children will internalize this
01:54:52as there was a reason for genocide.
01:54:55So without the psychological
01:54:56understandings perhaps being seen
01:54:58as the a reason or rationale
01:55:00for the genocide is there,
01:55:02is there a risk of that?
01:55:04I think I think it's what
01:55:06the question suggests.
01:55:06I would argue differently and say that.
01:55:10Uhm? What I am trying to do
01:55:15is explain a possible cause.
01:55:18And of course, is not exactly the
01:55:20same as a reason causes belong in this
01:55:23context to interpretation reasons,
01:55:26to something more like an argumentation,
01:55:29and also belong to the field of meaning.
01:55:34Meaning of genocide cannot,
01:55:36I think, be unraveled and causes
01:55:39with always be limited.
01:55:40We can keep on interpreting and
01:55:43trying to find out why it happened,
01:55:45but a specific why that is
01:55:47not one of reasons.
01:55:48So no, of course I mean the Jews.
01:55:51Where? Were slaughtered for no reason,
01:55:55but we can dig.
01:55:57I think into the causes.
01:55:59Try to understand what happened that does
01:56:03not give any justification of what happened.
01:56:07It's only an interpretation.
01:56:09I think that if if we refrain from
01:56:12trying to understand how it happens.
01:56:15We can't,
01:56:16we can't take seriously the fact that we
01:56:19are as as Mark said in his introduction,
01:56:22full at least trying to commit to
01:56:26preventing it from happening again.
01:56:29If we can't dig into.
01:56:34Yes, trying to elaborate the causes
01:56:37of how such violence can happen.
01:56:39We we cannot, I think,
01:56:43prevent other events of that type
01:56:46from happening in the future.
01:56:48So I would say maintaining the
01:56:50difference between causes and reasons
01:56:52is very important in this matter.
01:56:55And no,
01:56:55it does not justify anything
01:56:58to try to explain.
01:57:00Thank you and you know in fact you
01:57:02would you actually anticipated.
01:57:04I think the questioner meant because he
01:57:05sent a follow up note to me saying he
01:57:07should have said a justification for it,
01:57:09not necessarily a reason for it,
01:57:10but a justification.
01:57:11And so I think you've addressed it
01:57:12that nicely, that that to try and
01:57:14find A cause is not to therefore
01:57:16to claim that that causes itself
01:57:18a justification for the actions.
01:57:20I think that that's your point.
01:57:21It might correct in that.
01:57:24OK, thank you for that.
01:57:28Another individual asks in Germany
01:57:30there were hereditary health courts
01:57:32to appeal decisions to sterilize.
01:57:34Most appeals were denied whether
01:57:36avenues like this in the US states.
01:57:41So the fact that the Germans had
01:57:44this process actually was one
01:57:48of their critiques of EU of U.S.
01:57:50law that they pointed to US eugenics law.
01:57:54That's one of the ways that they
01:57:56suggested that US laws were actually
01:58:00more aggressive or more problematic
01:58:03than the construct that day.
01:58:06Put together and touted that difference,
01:58:10that distinction between most and again,
01:58:13I will say it to say that we had
01:58:14one process in the United States
01:58:17would be completely wrong because,
01:58:18well, I mean 18 states adopted some
01:58:21version of Laughlin's Model Law.
01:58:23But just like many other things.
01:58:26Different states did everything differently,
01:58:28but the Germans were actually
01:58:31explicit in saying,
01:58:32like our system is better because we
01:58:34have this appeals process whether it
01:58:35was a meaningful appeals process in
01:58:37practice is of course a different question,
01:58:39but they were touted that as a virtue of
01:58:43their system that was different from the US.
01:58:46And it's interesting.
01:58:47I mean, I think one could argue
01:58:49that that it was itself a sham,
01:58:52because almost none of the appeals
01:58:54came out in favor in favor of the
01:58:57individual making the appeal.
01:58:58And I'm speaking about in in Germany
01:58:59when they had these things set up,
01:59:01the overwhelming majority
01:59:02of the appeals were denied.
01:59:04I mean, of course, the appeal is based on.
01:59:06It's fascinating because if it's if
01:59:08what underlines the law, it seems is.
01:59:11So what we would consider
01:59:13unfair so irrational.
01:59:15Let's just say unfair.
01:59:16So if it underlines the law,
01:59:18is that well,
01:59:18the law states that that you can be
01:59:21sterilized for having congenital deafness,
01:59:24and then so if someone has to appeal
01:59:25this on the basis of the fact.
01:59:27Well this is my death.
01:59:27This isn't really congenital or something,
01:59:29I mean that that even
01:59:30those appeals were denied,
01:59:32but the the they're appealing
01:59:34against the law.
01:59:35That seems so so misguided.
01:59:41But of course, again,
01:59:42your point being that that
01:59:43similar laws exist in the United
01:59:44States without even the appeal.
01:59:46But I think the appeal in Germany was was.
01:59:50A little bit window dressing and
01:59:52perhaps for the reason that they
01:59:54saw that that window dressing
01:59:55was absent in the United States.
02:00:00The next question please.
02:00:07Well, this is a.
02:00:08This is a big question,
02:00:10and this Evelina,
02:00:12I think this could be for you.
02:00:13But I think this could be
02:00:14for anyone as well.
02:00:15Is the current turmoil or
02:00:17chaos in American Civil
02:00:18life open to the same causal
02:00:21interpretation as the Holocaust?
02:00:27Who wants to take his own?
02:00:35Does anybody want to speak to that?
02:00:42I.
02:00:44I would ask the following question what?
02:00:49Turmoil specifically.
02:00:53Well, I I I can't of course think
02:00:54for my my colleague who wrote this,
02:00:56but perhaps be one example would
02:00:58be the example that I gave.
02:00:59Of course, with those who feel that
02:01:02that the anti-Semitism that was somehow
02:01:05tide into resentment of immigrants.
02:01:09You know there were.
02:01:09It was brought out into the
02:01:11open in that example,
02:01:12but in general the anti immigrant,
02:01:14the sense that the that certain
02:01:17people are are taking our jobs.
02:01:19Certain people are changing our way of life.
02:01:22Certain people are a threat
02:01:23to our way of life.
02:01:25Perhaps this is some of that certainly
02:01:28appears to be from your your thesis,
02:01:30part of the causal interpretation
02:01:33of the Holocaust.
02:01:34Is it?
02:01:34Is it possible that that's also
02:01:36an issue with the United States,
02:01:38or indeed in Western Europe?
02:01:40But I I think it is. I mean it.
02:01:43It is something very human after all.
02:01:46This type of resentment. It is.
02:01:50I'm not sure it's specific to
02:01:51the United States. I wouldn't.
02:01:53It wouldn't be specific to any other place.
02:01:56I would say resenting those who
02:01:58seem to be taking on to a power
02:02:02that we feel should fall upon
02:02:04ourselves is a is something that
02:02:07happens between many different.
02:02:10Groups in probably all of them,
02:02:13and I would argue that one very
02:02:16big and important difference here
02:02:18is the involvement of the central
02:02:22government in the operations and in.
02:02:26Will say.
02:02:29Conveying this feeling of resentment.
02:02:32Trying to to convey to society,
02:02:36and having society follow on that track.
02:02:41This is, I think,
02:02:43the situation would be more
02:02:45worrisome if that were to be.
02:02:47I
02:02:47would just say that I I would to
02:02:50the extent we, the US court system.
02:02:53It is a government actor,
02:02:56voting rights, affirmative action,
02:02:58reproductive justice are all major
02:03:01issues that have been taken up by an
02:03:05increasingly conservative Supreme Court.
02:03:06So if I were to say, you know.
02:03:10In Rachel Maddow words, watch this space.
02:03:14I would be very.
02:03:18Concerned I would be watching
02:03:20very with great intention.
02:03:24What happens in the Supreme Court
02:03:26in the next couple of terms and
02:03:28what that says not nessif you
02:03:30know not necessarily causal for
02:03:33something in United States perhaps,
02:03:35but looking at how other
02:03:39countries could adopt.
02:03:41The ethos of the movement of our
02:03:45Supreme Court jurisprudence so would
02:03:47I be looking at very carefully,
02:03:49especially voting rights.
02:03:53Sorry Mike, may I add
02:03:56please? Yes, I'm I'm thank you.
02:03:59For for what you just said,
02:04:01I I just thought of another argument
02:04:04that could differentiate both situations
02:04:07in deam definition of genocide.
02:04:12Groups victimized groups may
02:04:17not be defined negatively.
02:04:19It has to be a positively
02:04:22positively identifiable group,
02:04:23whether in the eyes of
02:04:24the perpetrator or not.
02:04:25It cannot be all those who are not like us.
02:04:29For instance, right,
02:04:30it has to be a group of several groups.
02:04:33In particular,
02:04:34I think it's also an important
02:04:36point to take into consideration.
02:04:40Thank you and I think with that
02:04:42we'll end the panel discussion.
02:04:44We're gonna take a break for a few minutes,
02:04:46but before we do, I wanna thank Doctor Davis,
02:04:49attorney Kraschel and attorney Heinrich
02:04:51for this excellent discussion.
02:04:53And thank you folks for the
02:04:55great questions who sent them in?
02:04:56We're going to take a break
02:04:58and we'll be back.
02:05:00At 2:25, that's New Haven time.
02:05:03My friends 225 New Haven time.
02:05:05Someone who bought 15 minutes or so.
02:05:08We'll be back and we'll start with the
02:05:09second set of talks and the panel.
02:05:11Thank you so much.
02:05:12We'll see you back here at 2:25.