Number of victims
In total, there were 2,350 victims of sterilization in Minnesota.  Of the 2,350, 519 were male, and 1,831 (approx. 78%) were female. About 18% were deemed mentally ill and 82% mentally deficient. The sterilizations in Minnesota accounted for 4 percent of all the sterilizations in the nation (Lombardo, p. 118). 
Period during which sterilizations occurred
The sterilizations took place predominantly between 1928 and the late 1950s.  Sterilizations were relatively high in the 1930s and early 1940s (Paul, p. 393).  During the war, there was a shortage of staff, which may be the reason why there were fewer sterilizations from 1942 to 1946 (Paul, p. 396).
Temporal pattern of sterilizations and rate of sterilization
Picture of a graph of eugenic sterilizations in Minnesota

Eugenics was popular in Minnesota in the 1930s, but by the early 1940s, social workers and officials in the state were opposed to it.  Minnesota became much more selective with its sterilizations in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Ryan, p. 272).  There were about 135 sterilizations per year between 1928 and 1944. The rate was about 5 sterilizations per 100,000 residents per year during the peak period.        
Passage of law(s)
Minnesota’s sole sterilization law was passed on April 8, 1925, making it the seventeenth state to pass such legislature (Reierson, p. 11). The law was formally voluntary in nature, and would stay in the Minnesota law books almost unchanged for fifty years.
Minnesota also passed a marriage law in 1901, which "forbade the marriage of any woman under the age of 45 or any man of any age that was likely to father children, if either partner was epileptic, imbecilic, feeble minded, or afflicted with insanity" (Hudulla, p. 31).
Groups identified in the law
Prior to the passage of the sterilization law in 1925, the Children’s Code passed in 1917 "included a civil commitment law that empowered county probate judges to commit neglected, dependent, and delinquent children—and any person 'alleged to be Feeble Minded, Inebriate, or Insane,' regardless of age—to state guardianship without the approval of parent or kin. The guardianship was for life, unless the person was specifically discharged. Once committed as feebleminded, a ward took on the status of a permanent child: he or she was unable to vote, own property, manage his or her financial affairs, or marry without the state’s approval" (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota", p. 119). Given the strength of social Progessivism, the emphasis in applying this code was on individuals who were considered feebleminded, who could presumably be helped by social programs ameliorating their conditions and preventing them from having offspring that they were considered incapable of raising well.

Those groups identified in the 1925 sterilization law were the "feeble-minded" and insane persons having been institutionalized or hospitalized for at least six months (Reierson, p. 11). “The law provides that feeble-minded and insane in state institutions may be tubectomized or vasectomized upon the advice of the state board of control, the superintendent of the state school for feeble mindedness, a reputable physician or psychologist, provided or his or her legal representative gives consent” (Landman, pp. 89-90). Eugenics enthusiast Charles F Dight estimated there to be 80,000 to 100,000 "morons and mental defectives" in Minnesota alone, and 5,000,000 in the entire United States (Dight, p. 28).
Process of the law
Upon passage of the 1925 sterilization law, institutionalized "feeble-minded" and insane could be sterilized in the state of Minnesota. It only applied to persons under state gudaridanship. For a ward considered feebleminded, the state board of control could give consent, but only if no spouse of nearest kin could be located, who otherwise would have had to provide written consent. Sterilization also required assent by the superintendent of the state school for the feebleminded, and by a psychologist and physician (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota", p. 120). 

The consent itself was very carefully documented. Minnesota officials recorded consent of both the patient and kin as well as “basic demographic information like birth date, IQ and country of residence in a medical record book of the first 1,000 sterilization operations preformed” (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota," p. 127). Often the consent of the individual who was considered feebleminded was obtained, even though it was not legally necessary.

Minnesota's law was formally voluntary. However, families were sometimes told that release from the state institutions would proceed "more easily and satisfactory" if patients consented to sterilization (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota", p. 128). Though it was not specifically stated that individuals would be released if they consented to sterilization, it was implied that they would have more success if they obliged to sterilization.

As Ladd-Taylor ((Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota", p. 119) has pointed out, "a mentally ill person committed to the custody of the superintendent of the state hospital for the insane could be sterilized only if he or she had been a patient in the institution for six consecutive months. Both the patient and the next of kin had to give their written consent. It is not surprising, given the statutory requirements pertaining to institutionalization and personal consent, that fewer than 20 percent of sterilizations in Minnesota were performed on the insane."
Precipitating factors and processes
Minnesota was considered to have an outstanding program of legal guardianship for people who had mental disabilities, and the state’s School for the Feebleminded in Faribault was considered among the best custodial institutions (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” pp. 282-83).  This reflects the strength of progressivism in the state, which also manifested itself in extensive intrusions by courts and social workers into family life. The reason that such intrusions were considered necessary and important for the well-being of families was that with expansion of intelligence tests, the number of the “feeble minded” increased, with a subsequent increase in the number of people committed as feeble minded.  Judges committed feeble-minded people to the guardianship of the state without consent of the parent or guardian (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” pp. 285-86). Judges and social workers forced their attention on those who were considered beyond the benefit of public assistance, particularly those who were already in trouble with the law or welfare agencies as well as unmarried mothers (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 287). Yet their commitment in high numbers led to overcrowding and in the Depression of the 1930, when the system of parole and family support broke down (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 293).  “Frustrated by high case loads, disjointed relief policies, and limited resources, a significant number of Minnesota welfare workers concluded the ‘eugenic’ sterilization was a viable and indeed humane solution to the seemingly endless cycle of family poverty, dysfunction, and delinquency (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 239).

One of the larger precipitating factors was the development of the 1917 Children's Code. The code, composed of thirty-five laws in it's entirety, included a law which granted "country probate judges the power to commit neglected, dependent or delinquent children, as well as those deemed 'Feeble Minded, Inebriate, or Insane' to state guardianship" (Reierson, p. 10). Along with granting the state the power to commit a feeble minded child, the code created administrative bodies to oversee the process of committing an individual to state custody. A state children's bureau, child-welfare bureau were created to lengthen the arm of the law (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 239). Minnesota's mother's pensions and juvenile court laws were revised in the process, and the state made a commitment to providing illegitimate children with the same support and education as children whose parents were lawfully married. (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a "Public Menace,'" p. 239) The passage of this law was in many ways the starting point of eugenics laws in that it committed children deemed unfit to state custody, thus taking away an individuals right to their own body. Compulsory commitment laws allowed the state to legally obtain access to children (Reierson, p. 10).
In Minnesota, eugenic sterilizations were routine during the Inter war period because they serve a variety of functions in the state’s welfare system. For social workers, it made their jobs more manageable because it reduced the numbers of the “feeble minded.” For some families, various kinds of contraception were unavailable, so the sterilizations were forms of birth control. For eugenicists, it was a launching point that would lead to more stringent fertility laws for the unfit.  And for welfare officials, the sterilizations reduced public expenditures by at least shifting them to another level of the government (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 295).
By the 1930s, Minnesota was considered to be the most “feeble minded-conscious” state in the United States because of its comprehensive program for people living with mental disabilities (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 283). The greatest number of sterilizations in Minnesota took place in the 1930s because relief rolls expanded due to the Depression.
In the 1930s and 1940s, sterilizations in Minnesota were rather high as a result of people’s belief that the ward had the ability to raise a family. (Before 1946, more feeble-minded people were sterilized in Minnesota and Michigan than in the entire South combined.)  Today however, we do not feel the same way.  In fact, from 1945 on, the number of sterilizations results from the belief that surgery is not always the best way to deal with the mentally retarded. People started to care about what was best for the patients holistically, discussing their sterilizations by respecting the patients’ will (Paul, p. 393). There were fewer sterilizations during World War II not because of knowledge about Nazi eugenics, but because there was a shortage of medical and nursing persons.

Support for eugenics began to fade in the 1960s as general knowledge of genetics grew. As the public became more accepting of individuals with mental disabilities the field of mental health began to change, and eugenics laws began to be challenged. (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 246)

And, even though there was a scandal over the sterilizations performed at the state institution, sterilizations continued but were reduced in number until 1975, when the law was changed (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 282). However, sterilization is still permitted upon a court order (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 246).
Groups targeted and victimized
“Defective” individuals included the feeble-minded and insane persons that were hospitalized.  Most of the sterilizations were of poor, sexually active women who violated the traditional standards of morality and allegedly had children who they could not support (Ladd-Taylor, “Coping With a 'Public Menace,'” p. 243). As Molly Ladd-Taylor put it, “most women sterilized in Minnesota during the inter war years were either young sex ‘delinquents,’ often unmarried mothers, who were committed as feeble-minded through the court system, or slightly older women with a number of children on public assistance” ("‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 289).
One of the known victims was Lola. She came from a family in which her father had committed suicide and her mother, a polio survivor, was deemed incompetent by social workers. Lola was sent to a correctional facility at age sixteen after authorities suspected her to have had sex with older men repeatedly. She was sterilized in 1938 at the age of 21. She was “a girl who needs a family… [and] got sterilized instead” (Ladd-Taylor, “‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization,” p. 290).

Another known victim was an  eight-teen old girl by the name of Edna Collins. She was the ninety-eight person to become legally sterilized from Faribault (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 237). She was labeled as feeble minded. Six weeks after her operation Edna was healthy enough to be discharged and moved from the school to the Harmon Club, a home for feeble minded girls located in Minneapolis. (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 237). Later the following year Edna was readmitted to Faribault.

Ida Henderson was thirty-two years old when she was sterilized. Her IQ score of 51 placed her into the "moron" category, which by Minnesota law made her suitable for sterilization (Reierson, p. 1). Soon after her mother's consent was given, Ida Henderson was sterilized. Four months after sterilization Ida was returned to the institution because she could not adjust life outside of the Faribault school. (Reierson, p. 26)

An interesting known sterilization case is that of Tena and Stewart. Tena was pregnant with her fourth child Stewart had a drinking problem, when administered an IQ test both were found to be "feeble minded". What is interesting about their case is that both husband and wife were "committed to state guardianship, sent to a state institution, and sterilized" (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota," p. 117). In this case it was the couple's economic situation which qualified them for sterilization.

Major proponents

Charles Fremont Dight(Photo origin: Minnesota Historical Society; available at http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/117eugenics.html)
 Charles Fremont Dight was the founder of eugenics in Minnesota.  Dight was a physician in Minneapolis, who believed that the state should control the reproductive patterns of the unfit.  He was born in Mercer, Pennsylvania in 1856.  Dight graduated from University of Michigan in 1879 with a degree in medicine.  He eventually moved on Faribault, where he served as resident physician at Shattuck School until 1892.  This might have been Dight’s first experience with the mentally handicapped, and their institutions, which also happened to be the same place as the Minnesota School for the Feeble minded (Phelps, p. 100). After taking some time to travel and teach in Syria at the Medical College in Beirut Dight returned to in 1913 Minnesota to teach at Hamline University (Hudulla, p. 4). In 1913 Hamline medical school fused with the University of Minnesota. Dight continued to teach pharmacology at the University of Minnesota until 1933 (Sonderstrom, p. 99).
Dight was an outspoken socialist who had served on the Minneapolis city council before he took on eugenics (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping With a 'Public Menace,'” p. 241). Eugenics was not his only focus, Dight also had many other ideas for improving the general lifestyle of society. For instance he argued that Minneapolis should feed its garbage piles to pigs instead of burning it (Carlson, p. 132). Much like his views, Dight's personality was also quite eccentric, he built and lived in a tree house in Minneapolis for many years (Carlson, p. 133).
It was no until the early 1920s that Dight began his attempts to create a eugenics movement in Minnesota (Hudulla, p. 4).  The question Dight was asking of society was "why is there crime and degeneracy?" (Carlson, p. 133) Dight believed the answer to this lay in individual genes. He believed that individuals who were "defective" were so because of innate characteristics that could not be altered. He pushed for eugenics education, changes in the marriage laws, and the segregation and sterilization of these “defective” people. In Dight's eyes, the only way to prevent crime was to prevent criminals and degenerates from reproducing (Carlson, p. 135). In fact, Dight sought to create a Utopian society, free from "degenerates" (Carlson, p. 142). Dight believed that "eugenics would not simply make a better world, it would create a perfect world (Carlson, p. 142). He argued for sterilization by saying that a house "cannot be made out of rotting lumber" (Carlson, p. 132). Dight organized the Minnesota Eugenics Society in 1923 and started to campaign for a sterilization law.  He launched a legislature crusade for the sterilization of the “defectives.”  He did not think that that segregation of the unfit was enough; they needed to be sterilized so that they did not pass their undesirable traits through procreation (Phelps, p. 101).  Dight often used a metaphor of "keeping an ambulance at the foot of a cliff to carry to the hospital the people who fall over" (Dight, p. 28). Instead he argued, a railing should be installed in order to prevent people from falling off the cliff in the first place. The railing, in this case represented a suitable sterilization law (Dight, p. 28).
Dight argued that mental inferiority could be easily identified by two things: jazz and skull shape. Jazz, according to Dight was the 'devil's kind", and was enjoyed more by the inferior because it appealed to their "inborn animal nature" (Hudulla, p. 9). Craniometry the study of the size and shape of skulls/brains was also a crude tool used by Dight to assess mental capabilities. His argument is that "great men" have larger fore heads representing their larger  frontal lobe, where as "lower animals" including the feeble minded and inferior would have smaller foreheads (Hudulla, p. 9). Dight's beliefs on craniometry ultimately stemmed from a professor of clinical surgery: Paul Broca. As a "cure" for mental defectives Dight turned to the well known practice of farming. He argued that much like a farmer would bred his two healthiest animals together, humans should also only breed the best with the best. Dight sought to extend breeding practices to humans (Hudulla, p. 25). Not only should humans stop the unfit from reproducing, but he breeding of "thoroughbred should be encouraged. (Hudulla, p. 26). To properly execute human breeding Dight suggested to "learn if feeble-minded-ness, insanity, epilepsy, or repeated criminality have existed during the last three generations" of your potential mate (Hudulla, p. 30). In this way Dight hoped to prevent the marriage of the reproductively unfit (Hudulla, p. 30).

Dight’s biggest adversary was the Catholic Church, who opposed his ideas on moral grounds (Phelps, p. 104).  Interestingly enough Dight often used religion as a reason and as support for eugenics. He argued that Jesus condemned the "unfit", using a familiar bible quote "and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire" as a pro sterilization argument (Carlson, p. 139). The American Eugenics society even published "A Eugenics Catechism" in which they combated potential arguments from the religious community. (Hudulla, p. 14). Despite the printing of "A Eugenics Catechism" and Dight's frequent use of biblical metaphors in defense of eugenics, few in the religious community were swayed. It is not surprising then that Dight also expressed distaste of the church, as well as the state and educational system. His argument was that you cannot change individuals from the inside out and that the church, state and educational systems were wasting time and resources trying to alter the inevitable (Carlson, p. 135). In fact Dight specifically attacked the church on many occasions calling it the "uplifter reformer" and mocking it for its "coddling and forgiving treatment" (Carlson, p. 136). Dight instead believed that "training after birth cannot undo a bad inheritance" (Carlson, p. 136). Education and religion were only temporary fixed, and in the long run did not achieve results (Carlson, p. 137).

Foremost among Dight’s goal was convincing the state legislature to enact encompassing sterilization laws for the mentally handicapped.  He confronted the legislature each biennium in this regard from 1925 to 1935” (Phelps, p. 99).  Dight tried to get the sterilization law to extend to the feeble-minded and insane persons that we not institutionalized, but he was unsuccessful.  Though he was not at fault for his effort, often promoting his ideas to senators up to a point of annoyance (Carlson, p. 141). Overall, he pushed for stricter sterilization laws in Minnesota, but they did not pass. Dight praised other eugenics movements across the world, often citing Germany as the "shining example" of an effective eugenics program. (Hudulla, p. 16). He would often attribute Germany's success as support for the American eugenics movements. According to Dight, Germany's orderly society was a direct result of their efficient eugenics programs (Hudulla, p. 18). In 1933, Dight wrote a letter to Adolf Hitler wishing Nazi efforts in eugenic sterilization “to be a great success” and noted in a letter to the Minneapolis Journal that “if carried out effectively, [compulsory sterilization of the disabled] will make [Hitler] the leader of the greatest rational movement for human betterment the world has ever seen” (http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories/letterHitler.pdf). Dight hoped to inspire future eugenics movements after his death. Though he died in 1938, he devoted much of his life savings to fund the creation of the Dight Institute for Eugenics on the University of Minnesota Campus (Carlson, p. 132). The name has since been changed to the Dight institute for the Promotion of Human genetics (Carlson, p. 132).

Fred Kuhlmann was a psychologist and an important proponent of eugenics. He served as the Director of Research at the Faribault school from 1910 to 1921 (Reierson, p. 18). After leaving Faribault Dr. Kuhlmann took up the post of the head of the Research Bureau of the State Board of Control (Reierson, p. 18). During his time at Faribault Dr. Kuhlmann was responsible for the administration and the interpretation of psychological testing. He revised the Binet-Simon Test in 1920, dubbing it the Kuhlman-Binet test, and administered it in order to identify “high grade” mental defectives (Reierson, p. 17). Dr. Kuhlmann was responsible for the increase in the number of Minnesotans who were labeled feeble minded (Ladd-Taylor, “Coping With a 'Public Menace,'” p. 240). His paper entitled "The Larger Aspects of the Special Class", Kuhlmann asserts that "subnormal children" were half of all social trouble (Reierson, p. 19).
    Mildred Thomson was in charge of the control board’s bureau for feeble minded and epileptic from 1924 to 1959. Her position at the head of the control board bureau made her, by law, the guardian of the wards of state hospitals (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota," p. 124). Though Thomson considered herself primarily a social worker, she studied at Stanford University where she wrote her thesis on the IQ testing of school children (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota,"  p. 124). She worked closely with both Dight and Kuhlmann. 

Execution of the Law
Sterilizations began at the School for the Feeble minded on January 8, 1926. George G. Eithel preformed the first 150 surgeries,  after his death in 1928 his nephew George D. Eithel would take over. (Reierson, p. 22). The Faribault School for the Feeble-minded was the only location in Minnesota where sterilization of the mentally handicapped were preformed (Hudulla, p. 31). Once individuals had been lawfully committed to an institution they would often work at their respective institutions as low-wage workers. (Reierson, p. 13). High-grade inmates were expected to work in order to "pay" for room and board. Sterilizations were often preformed on site, it was common for Dr. Eithel to travel to Faribault to preform free sterilizations (Reierson, p. 17). Once individuals had been sterilized they were either released, or sent to "clubhouses". Approximately a fifth of the inmates released from institutions were sent to clubhouses. (Reierson, p. 13). The clubhouse was set in place as an intermediate step between institutionalization and the "real world". Clubhouses allowed individuals to have a greater sense of independent living, while still under constant supervision. In this way, the procedure of segregation was again assimilated into eugenics programs. Clubhouses opperated under the reward system, granting inmates more freedom depending on their levels of mental deficiency (Reierson, p. 13). During the Great Depression the clubhouse system would collapse due to a lack of funding.

“Feeder institutions” and institutions where sterilization were performed
Picture of the Faribault State HospitalPhoto origin: Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities;  available at http://www.mnddc.org/past/1990s/1990s-3.html)
The Faribault State Hospital in Minnesota served the entire state until the late 1950s. The school was first opened in 1879 under the name of the School for Idiots and Imbeciles, two years after the school began collaborating with the Minnesota Institute for the Deaf Dumb and the Blind.  (Reierson, p. 15) The combination of the two institutions was then named the Minnesota Institute for Defectives. In 1901 the name was again changed to the School for the Feeble-Minded and Colony of Epileptics (Reierson, p. 15). Patients in the institution were of all ages and had varying degrees of mental retardation. The school was created with three main objectives in mind: to function as a trade-school type education, as shelter for those who could not take care of themselves and to care for children whose parents were unable to (Reierson, p. 16). In the 1940s however another principle was added, the school would also act as a home for those who are a menace to society (Reierson, p. 16).

Dr. Arthur C. Rogers led the School for Feeble minded, as superintendent, from 1886 to 1917. In 1910 Dr. Fred Kuhlmann, a research psychologist from Clark University, was invited to assist Dr. Rogers as the Director of Research (Reierson, p. 16). As director, Kuhlmann was asked by Dr. Rogers to try and establish more tangible evidence of mental deficiently caused by heredity (Reierson p. 16).  With the assistance Charles Davenport and ERO fieldworkers Rogers and Kuhlmann were able to create a pedigree of all the school’s inmates and compile the results into a book he named Dwellers in the Vale of Sidden (Ladd-Taylor, “Coping With a ‘Public Menace,’” p. 239). Dr. Rogers died in 1917 and was succeeded by G.C. Hanna. Sterilizations began with the passage of the law in 1925. A surgeon by the name of George G. Eithel would frequently make a fifty-mile journey to Faribault to perform sterilizations on inmates free of charge (Reierson, p. 17). Dr. James Murdoch would take over the position of superintendent when Hanna died. During Murdoch’s time as superintendent the school went through its greatest grown period, between 1920 and 1932 the population increased by 500 residents to a grand total of 2,217 (Reierson, p. 17).  Often the doctors of the school would offer summer courses with the goal to educated like-minded people and expand the number of institutions. It was one of the nation’s foremost institutions for the feeble minded.  The school was re-named to the Faribault Regional Center, and then again to the Faribault State School and Hospital before it closed. The institution closed on July 1, 1998 and was replaced by a correctional facility (Ladd-Taylor, “Coping With a 'Public Menace,'” p. 246).

The Harmon Club was established in 1942, as a place for women to go during "parole" (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 244) Once women were discharged they would be moved to the Harmon Club in Minneapolis. The club was considered to be an intermediate between the Faribault School and the community where women could live more independently and inexpensively (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 244). Unfortunately the Harmon Club as well as the two other club houses in St. Paul and Duluth felt the effects of the Great Depression and closed in the 1930s (Ladd-Taylor, "Coping with a 'Public Menace,'" p. 244)
American Catholics were the main opponents of Eugenics (Leon), and social workers and some state officials opposed it as well (Ryan, p. 272).  Though not all of the press coverage given to the eugenics movement was negative, the media was generally critical, labeling eugenics as a "war of the wealthy against the poor" (Reierson, p. 9)  Overall, however, there was very little public discussion about the feeble-minded, which resulted in indifference towards them. However there were a few who challenged the sterilization practices. Of the total one thousand recorded sterilizations, seven men and seventeen women attempted to flee the institution (Reierson, p. 23). Unfortunately, the inmates rarely succeeded in avoiding sterilization. The reason being that any resistance on the part of the inmate, or general public was attributed to their low IQ, and not to the practice of sterilization. Due to the lack of organized opposition, one individual's criticism against an "organized and mobile eugenics machine" (Reierson, p. 10) was often ignored.

One case stood out beyond all others, Rose Masters was a "Catholic farm wife and mother of ten" (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota", p. 132). Though their children were normal, agents from the country welfare board repeatedly showed up at the farm. Mrs. Masters was sent to the state institution in 1942, three months following her neighbors petitioned her release. The case went up all the way to the Minnesota Supreme court and she was eventually released. (Ladd-Taylor, "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota", p. 132).  In another important case in 1944 the Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof was not on the individual but the state welfare board. (Reierson, p. 14).
Carlson, Jessie A. 2009. "Eugenic Sterilization: The Final Solution for America". Undergraduate Research Journal at UCCS 2, 1. Available at <http://ojs.uccs.edu/index.php/urj/article/view/56/64> .

Dight, Charles F. 1935. "History of the early stages of the organized eugenics movement for human betterment in Minnesota." Minneapolis: Minnesota Eugenics Society.

Hudalla, Justin W. 2001. "The Human Garden Needs Weeding: Charles F. Dight and Eugenics in Minnesota, 1920-1938." Undergraduate Thesis, Dept. of History, University of Minnesota at Minneapolis.

Ladd-Taylor, Molly. 2011. "Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota." Pp.117-140 in A Century of Eugenics in America, ed. P. Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

--------. 2005. "Coping With a 'Public Menace': Eugenic Sterilization in Minnesota." Minnesota History 59, 6: 237-248.

-------. 2004. “The ‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization: Fiscal Politics and Feeble minded Women in Inter war Minnesota.” Pp. 281-99 in Mental Retardation in America: A Historical Anthology, eds. S. Noll and J. Trent. New York: New York University Press.

Landman, J. H. 1932. Human Sterilization: The History of the Sexual Sterilization Movement. New York: MacMillan.
Leon, Sharon. 2004. "Hopelessly Entangled in Nordic Pre-suppositions: Catholic Participation in the American Eugenics Society in the 1920s." Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 59, 1: 3-49.
Paul, Julius. 1965. "'Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough': State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice." Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
Phelps, Gary. 1984. "The Eugenics Crusade of Charles Fremont Dight." Minnesota History 49, 3: 99-109

Reierson, Sondra. 2006. "Eugenics in action: Minnesota and the Faribault School for Feeble minded." Undergraduate paper, College of Saint Catherine.
Ryan, Patrick J. 2007. "'Six Blacks from Home': Childhood, Motherhood, and Eugenics in America." Journal of Policy History 19, 3: 253-281.  

Soderstrom, Mark. 2004. "Weeds in Linnaeus’s Garden: Science and Segregation and the Rhetoric of Racism at the University of Minnesota and the Big Ten". Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of History, University of Minnesota.