Part of our preparation for NCFR's 75^th anniversary conference in 2013 will be the unveiling of the NCFR History project that is being overseen by NCFR Executive Director Emerita, Mary Jo Czaplewski, conference consultant Cindy Winter and one of our staff members, Jason Samuels. Jason came to me this week to show me the program from the very first conference in 1938. Specifically, he called my attention to one of the conference panelists, Ellsworth Huntington. If I hadn't seen some of his work in print, I would have never believed it.

Ellsworth Huntington is a name that has disappeared from the modern family sciences and for good reason.  His ideology and "research" have been totally discredited. It's worse than social Darwinism, which one still sees carefully couched in some public policy thought today. It's eugenics. Huntington was a past president of the American Eugenics Society. His thesis was that social engineering should be a process of encouraging superior humans to procreate while discouraging it among the rabble. His book, "Tomorrow's Children: the Goal of Eugenics" (1935) is scanned online. I encourage anyone to play "drop the needle" and just start reading on any page. It may be the most repugnant content I've ever read. 

Far from promulgating a refuted and dangerous discipline, I see posting this text here as instructive. George Santayana once gave the oft-quoted opinion that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Huntington was given the NCFR podium to explain his "science."  The questions for us today are many. Did extending the NCFR welcome mat to Mr. Huntington encourage the scrutiny of his ideas?  Or did it give him a mantle of validity? He spoke in 1938. We all know what was going on in the eugenics field about that time. I'd like to pretend that this ugly stuff didn't happen in my lifetime. But eugenics was the basis for miscegenation laws finally overturned in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967. I was in first grade.

What we continually hear from our conference attendees via our surveys is that they love a good panel discussion with a breadth of ideas and a lively debate. What does this mean? How far can we go?

I don't have any answers here. I have the advantage of viewing eugenics through my viewpoint today. Today, I would get up and walk out of a lecture by this man. But, were I an NCFR member in 1938, what would I have done?  After all, I'm the product of rural peasants--I would have been a member of the great unwashed. Would I have heeded his advice and never become a mother?  Moreover, I married into another ethnicity. According to his advice, I would have been destroying my one advantage by diluting my "superior" 100% Swedish stock. I've based many of my life decisions on advice of experts. Would I have passed up a wonderful man and married someone else?

How should we treat controversy when planning an annual conference? NCFR members--I'd very much like to read your comments. Post them.They are moderated to prevent spam, but they are anonymous and are not tracked in any way.