Oof.

would be nice to see what Mead actually did & said. information is slim in this article, Middlebury College's article, and the wikipedia page for him. is this actually a nuanced subject, or is this "old man yells at clouds"? Likely the former, but it'd be nice to read more.

> The basis for the name removal was Gov. Mead’s support, in his farewell address of 1912, “for proposals to restrict the issuance of marriage licenses and to appoint a commission to study the use of a new operation called a vasectomy, which was a safer and more humane process of sterilization,” the lawsuit states. But claims that his comments caused sterilizations to happen 20 or 30 years later “is factually baseless and legally unjust,” Douglas wrote.

considering the republican and democratic parties swapped platforms somewhere around that time I don't think this is just blatant "im a republican and republicans good" move, but it could be. studying vasectomies is fine, the dude WAS literally a doctor so that makes sense. Restricting the issuance of marriage licenses is sus but I don't know what those licenses are, how they're given out, etc etc.

Any historians here to educate? I'd love to learn more.

edit: it’s not looking good for mr mead imo

A Republican wanting to protect a follower of eugenics (a pretty racist philosophy) And willing to go to court for it.
No surprises there.

Not a historian, but I think the whole issue is very complicated. Eugenics was, at the time, mainstream and fairly widely accepted as a great idea. I'm sure well meaning people right now (myself included) are promoting ideas that will seem off-putting in the future. No need to honor these men, of course, but I think it is important to take the historical context into account when personally judging. There but for the grace of god go I, kind of thing.

This is the garbage you’re paying for when you send your kid to Middlebury for $75k/year.

Something, something, Margaret Sanger.

Jimbo defending an eugenics promoter? Sounds like VTGOP shenanigans to me.

What, is there a Conservative Clown College that will educate them better?

I think you did not read the article.

It says Mead mentioned a new operation called a vasectomy. And that it would be a favorable advance in medicine, or words to that effect. The vasectomy was performed 30 years later, by people not known to Mead when he made his comments. Douglas said, to connect those two is simply not logical or fair, or words to that effect.

I had a vasectomy. Are you saying I support eugenics? I really don't think you are saying that. I think you did not read the article.

I am not one to defend republicans very often. This would be the time.

I met Jim Douglas when he was a recent graduate from Middlebury College. He came to our house for a meal more than once. That was around 1969 to 1974. He also came to the office where my dad worked, and where my mom worked.

I remember two things about him. He was the only person I knew under the age of 60 who wore his pants above his belly button. This was in the time of bell bottoms and hip hugger jeans. So, it was really awkward.

And I remember he was a member of the Young Republicans, or college republicans. It was a time when I was figuring out the difference between democrat and republican. Through the types of jobs my parents had, I had the opportunity to meet political leaders in both parties. Jim Douglas was one of the few republicans that treated me as a real person at the age of 7 when I first met him. He was polite, asked my opinions and listened to the answers.

Douglas is one of the few republicans I have ever voted for.

I read the article. I was at first surprised, then pissed. Then I read deep into the details and came to my original opinion of Jim Douglas. He is an honorable person and his lawsuit has merit, based on what is included in the article.

Mead made comments about the vasectomy, and said it was worth looking into for more study. 30 years later a different group of people sterilized people with a vasectomy. And to connect those two in a way to imply that Mead supported eugenics is not fair. And, the name Mead was for the Mead family, and not just one person. Furthermore, the contract to build Mead Chapel included money from the Mead family for the construction. Part of the deal was that the chapel would carry the Mead Family name.

I generally don't like republicans. It is rare that I would defend one. Jim Douglas is one of the exceptions. I have not seen him act in bad faith at any time.

A lot of people didn't read the article and downvoting those that did.

He's a decent enough guy. I've met him and, besides some probably religiously motivated opinions that I'd not take, he's a the good apple among the rotten. Therefore he should think more critically about the company he keeps imo, the term "vermont republican" is becoming less and less meaningful to separate from the national story. The term is about as dated as navel high pants in the 70's. Have some guts and denounce the party.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think you should read more about this Mead guy - https://vermonthistory.org/journal/87/VH8701SegregationOrSterilization.pdf. He definitely advocated for eugenics way more than just supporting vasectomies generally.

https://vermonthistory.org/journal/87/VH8701SegregationOrSterilization.pdf

There is much more to the story than just the idea that Mead supported vasectomies…

Well that is a massive misunderstanding of the history. Mead was a clear, active, vocal leader in the eugenics movement. He was very clear about his beliefs on forced sterilizations and segregation. He used his political power to bring eugenics to Vermont law.

https://vermonthistory.org/journal/87/VH8701SegregationOrSterilization.pdf

For those acting like this was a knee-jerk reaction by the college based on some tenuous connection between a dude who thought vasectomies sounded neat and forced sterilization programs, I encourage you to read the variety of historical sources that the college considered in depth when arriving at the decision (discussed in the campus newspaper article). I’ve excerpted a relevant section discussing Mead below, from an article published by the Vermont Historical Society titled “Segregation or Sterilization”: Eugenics in the 1912 Vermont State Legislative Session:

By the end of the 1910s, Vermont’s government was sufficiently well versed in the issues of “degeneracy” to officially consider a eugenical solution. Governor Mead went above and beyond in crafting his official call to action, having “endeavored during the last two years to inform [himself] thoroughly” by gathering information from the “most progressive states” and Vermont’s own institutions. Prior to becoming governor, Mead worked as a doctor and served as the state’s surgeon general under Governor Redfield Proctor (1878–1880). This background gave him a solid academic grounding to under- stand eugenics, if not an introduction to the field itself.

Mead confidently informed the joint assembly of the legislature that state research confirmed that the degenerate class was “increasing out of all proportion to the normal class of the population.” He presented the growth as the result of tainted intermarriage: It was a “fact that if a defective marry a defective, as is very often the case, the offspring will inherit the taints of both parents.” Indeed, “many of the confirmed inebriates, prostitutes, tramps, and criminals that [filled Vermont’s] penitentiaries, jails, asylums, and poor farms are the results of these defective parents,” with “little or no hope of permanent recovery.” The only question that now remained was “how best to restrain this defective class and how best to restrict the propagation of defective children.”

The governor proposed three eugenical solutions for the legislature that drew from existing public policies and institutional practices. In addressing the assembly, he said:

Let us consider this matter upon these facts:

1. The fact of the great number of public charges recruited from the defective classes.
2. The fact that defects, physical and mental, are transmitted to the offspring.
3. The fact that if a defective marry a defective, as is very often the case, the offspring will inherit the taints of both parents. That this class is prolific, knowing no law of self-restraint, and consequently defectives are increasing in numbers and are of a more pronounced type. What can be done to protect society from these unfortunates and what to protect them from themselves?
4. Restrictive legislation in regard to marriages.
5. Segregation of defectives.
6. A surgical operation known as vasectomy.

Most of your downvotes are probably folks whose ‘rents paid $75k/yr for them to attend a pretentious liberal arts college (they understand the world better!)

Well, the article says exactly what Jim Douglas told the Bennington Banner, so yeah, reading the article would have given you the impression that this was no biggie, bruh. Have you read the full address though? https://sos.vermont.gov/media/y4wfu1lu/mead1912.pdf

"The heads of our criminal institutions tell us that among the inmates there is always a considerable class that are termed “degenerates” or “defectives,” by which is meant a class of individuals in whose mental or nervous construction there is something lacking. Alienists, criminalogists and physicians tell us that individuals of this unfortunate class tend to marry those cursed with similar defects, and that this class is increasing out of all proportion to the normal growth of the population, and that most of the insane, the epileptics, the imbeciles, the idiots, the sexual perverts, together with many of the confirmed inebriates, prostitutes, tramps and criminals that fill our penitentiaries, jails, asylums and poor farms are the results of these intermarriages or the natural offspring of defective parents. In the cases of these unfortunates there is little or no hope of permanent recovery, and the great question that is now being considered by the lawmakers in many of our states is how best to restrain this defective class and how best to restrict the propagation of defective children."

Mead decides that "segregation of defectives" would be too drastic a method because, in his exact words, it might "result in life-imprisonment of unfortunates" who "might, in some small way, be of some use in the world."

He proposes the more, um, humanitarian (?) options of forcible vasectomies for people with "hereditary taints and diseases" and also legislature restricting marriage licenses for people convicted of certain crimes as well as people with various physical and mental health conditions.

https://sos.vermont.gov/media/y4wfu1lu/mead1912.pdf full text here folks. In case you are unfamiliar with the concept of a search engine, you use your internet browser to go to a website such as www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, or if you're feeling nostalgic, www.askjeeves.com. You then enter keywords such as "Vermont" "John Mead" and "1912 address" to find information you are looking for out on the good ol' world wide web.

https://sos.vermont.gov/media/y4wfu1lu/mead1912.pdf

Please read the original text from former Governor Mead's 1912 address before you decide whether to defend Douglas here. Just going to keep posting this until I see someone defending Gov Douglas linking to it.

Full Text of 1912 farewell address from Gov. Mead here: https://sos.vermont.gov/media/y4wfu1lu/mead1912.pdf

The section "Our Degenerates" begins on pg. 6.

If Mead was such a bad dude, the building should be demolished. After all, it was built with his money.

OK. I will read up on that. I tried to write my comment to make it clear that my information on Mead was just from the attached article.

Thanks.

That was not included in your comment. I read the article posted by OP, and replied based on the article.

When you don't include your source of information, it is fair to criticize the information given.

I will read up on this article later on today.

Mead did far more than merely suggest further study of vasectomies. In reality, he suggested vasectomies as one of a few options (in addition to restrictions on marriage and segregation) to control the growing population of “degenerates” in society.

Jim Douglas might be acting in good faith, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is correct.

I read the article. My comments are a mix between what is in the article and the comment.

If you have different information, it should be included in your comment. To have information and not include it in your comment is not really fair. Others have posted new to me information. I will read that later today.

thanks for the link. looks like he was a fan of eugenics, talks about it page 12. case closed. appreciated.

could’ve gone without the snark, i did the basic 2 minute googling. but thanks for the info.

If a google of "mead eugenics involvement" immediately pulls up this asshat's outspoken question of "Segregation or Sterilization" in 1912 - I implore you to stop fooling yourself into thinking you are trying. With all that, I warn you that the devil's advocate act makes you look like a walking cock-sock. Be better, fucking christ.

Sure that makes sense.

Hitlers vacation hideaway was turned into a retreat for American soldiers and their dependents to vacation at. One of Sadam Husseins palaces was turned into a school that allows women where all classes are in English. This seems better than simply destroying things.

Jim and Scott going out of their way to endorse John Klar in 2022 put another nail in the "VT Republican" coffin.

Can you tell me in what way a private individual suing a private institution from changing the names of one of its buildings is acting in good faith? Because I don’t really understand what legal standing he would have to do this? It seems like just a lawsuit designed to stoke public outrage and score political points more than anything else.

Facts of Mead’s life aside. It wouldn’t seem to matter to me either way. It seems like a pretty frivolous lawsuit.

It is perfectly fitting for a chapel to be linked to both Eugenics and Republicans. I dont think the name should be changed at all, these places shouldnt be whitewashed nor should the history and people tied to them be.

I went to Middlebury and I approve this comment 💯%

19fucking12 guy it was a different word. Most of our leaders from those days were very flawed compared to today. Again 1912 over a hundred freaking years ago. Shunning people for having mainstream views a hundred years ago is so pathetic and on brand for you woko haram types.

Edit: Kixeliz making comments about me but blocking any reply is kinda weak don't ya think? Typical right winger cause he does not agree with me bull crap anyways. Get some new material hun.

They should just close the whole place down anyways. After all it is on "unceeded" land. But the funny thing is in time these proggy's will have the same fate. What they idealize today will be hated by them in the future. Mead was progressive for his time perhaps in time my children will see the names of those pushing the trans ideology face the same fate by another group of well meaning but brainwashed useful idiots.

Lol and now you've got the mouthbreathers whose whole personality is wrapped up in being a right winger trying to claim "but that was so long ago" like they don't routinely pat themselves on the back because Lincoln Republicans were anti-slavery in the 1800s.

Here’s a guy who is oblivious to the current academic climate and the nonsensical idea pathogens that are being fed to students.

They pay their non teaching staff dogshit and use strong arm tactics to control the area. I wouldn’t want my name associated with them.