Close
Exploring the connection between historical artefacts and modern ethical dilemmas with a marginalised community.
Introduction
As part of the UCL Discover Summer School in 2023, Dr Manjula Patrick and Indie Beedie invited deaf and hard of hearing year 12 school students from across the UK to engage in Object Based Learning (OBL) with items from UCL’s Eugenics and Biometrics Collection. The aim was to explore connections between historical artifacts and modern ethical dilemmas through the lens of a community still marginalised by enduring eugenicist ideology.
This case study supports:
Reflection on the opportunities and challenges of object-based learning (OBL) with objects from UCL’s Eugenics and Biometrics Collection.
Consideration of working with issues of ableism, disability, and eugenics with groups who were historically the target of eugenicists.
Learning from experienced educators about the challenges faced when including eugenics content in their work.
Key terms and ideas
Deafness and eugenics. Eugenics was often called the ‘science of improving species’; deafness was often perceived by eugenicists as a ‘defect’ that needed to be eliminated. Prior to the global proliferation of eugenic ideas, deafness was often considered to be a linguistic minority rather than a disability. As Katsui et al (2024) argue, far beyond the elimination of deafness in individuals, eugenics philosophies and policies in the last century saw the active promotion of the prohibition of deaf–deaf marriages, forced sterilisations and abortions, imposed hearing rehabilitation and ear surgeries, and the eradication of sign language in schools for deaf children.
Eugenics and Biometrics Collection (previously called The Galton Collection) was donated as a part of Sir Francis Galton’s bequest to the university after his death in 1911. Galton was an English polymath and the coiner of the term “eugenics”.
Object based learning (OBL) refers the usage of objects, usually archival materials, to inspire active learning and critical reflection.
Phrenology, a pseudo-scientific theory that the shape and size of the skull indicates aspects of people’s character and mental capacity.
Session components
To cater to diverse learning styles and needs, the group communicated using British Sign Language (BSL), Sign Supported English (SSE), spoken English, and the use of live captioning.
Part 1: Visual exploration and reflection
Image 1. Facilitators, students, and objects in the OBL.
Each group was provided with one or two objects from the Eugenics and Biometrics Collection. They were informed that these objects were part of UCL's collection and held ethical implications concerning marginalised groups. The students were then encouraged to observe the visual characteristics, textures, and structures of the objects without disclosing their precise historical context or inventor. This approach fostered an unbiased initial exploration of the objects while offering some light-touch preparation about their nature.
Example of objects and student initial feedback
Image 2. Galton's whistles. Designed to test human hearing.
"A tool – something for woodwork."
Image 3. Phrenology head cast. Used by phrenologists to match physical characteristics to personality traits.
"Heads of old white people who did something for UCL – may be UCL’s founding fathers."
Image 4. Galton's counting glove. Used to covertly rate women’s beauty across Great Britain.
"For polishing something."
"Very old gloves, looks like leather(?) - man’s gloves from the shape(?)."
"Jeremy Bentham’s gloves."
Part 2: Discussion and idea formation
After the visual exploration, the curator unveiled the identity of the inventor and the purpose of the objects. With this new insight, the groups had the opportunity to re-examine and discuss the objects, considering the context provided by the curator. Students’ reaction included:
"Wow [Galton] invented all these different things – we still use his fingerprinting, weather map, and whistle."
"Creepy, judgmental."
"We laughed that the ‘ugliest’ place was XXXXX, but the whole beauty map stuff is really awful."
Part 3: Group presentation and ethical debates
Each group presented their discussions on their assigned objects, sparking wider conversations about the ethics of using items created for discriminatory purposes by individuals with prejudiced views.
Discussions included:
Galton's awareness of the beauty map’s inappropriateness is evident in his covert counting method. His subjective, non-consensual approach objectified women, a challenge that persists today despite progress in women's rights.
Phrenology lacks scientific validity, and the hierarchical structure of the 'genius group' reinforced gender biases by ranking women as less intelligent than men.
While Galton contributed to useful inventions, like the weather map and fingerprinting kit, it is important to critically separate his innovations from his harmful views, recognising both the positive and negative aspects of his legacy.
Understanding history is crucial, not only to acknowledge past harm, but also to learn from it.
Student reflections
After discussing the ethical implications of the objects and their relevance to modern ethics, students wrote personal reflections in response to guiding questions. Students' reflections on the OBL session included:
"It has enlightened me through the introduction of purpose and intention of objects - objects are not innately bad, it’s the people who make them. These ethical implications are deeply relevant in today’s society, the history and future."
"It mostly seems to me a life of a prejudice man attempting to satisfy his views with fake science and biased observations."
"I acknowledge that we still have a significant amount of bias (like Galton towards beauty). It must be stressed that our current ethics are very different from the Victorian era, so it is difficult to compare."
"Firstly, it is important to look at the past so we could understand and compare the similarities and differences between the past and present world. What ideas could we change from the past to make the world a better place."
"A lot of the things he did violates a lot of human rights… However, if we forget about the bad he did, it will happen again."
Staff reflections
The activity lead and a deaf facilitator shared reflections after the session. A key insight from the lead was the unpredictability of diverse opinions in these discussions, highlighting the need for adaptability, “at age 17, life experiences are often limited, making content like this a steep learning curve.” They also noted that, “the activity's success can be largely attributed to the expertise and experiences of the deaf facilitators, both in their lived experience and professional backgrounds”, reinforcing the knowledge that experienced and well-prepared facilitators are a key component in running a successful session.
Even with school students, we sometimes assume they have more prior knowledge than they do. A deaf facilitator, a former UCL student, observed:
"…it would have been very useful in the introduction of the session just to make it clear that the speaker and UCL as an institution now is anti-discrimination and is working to be accessible."
This information came later in the session, but planning the order and importance of topics is vital when dealing with such impactful topics.
More detailed staff reflections can be found in the Appendix.
The benefits of conducting activities centred ‘difficult’ knowledge
Benefits for marginalised groups
Empowerment through knowledge: Teaching marginalised groups about difficult historical knowledge empowers them with a deeper understanding of their own history and the broader societal context. It enables them to challenge and question ideologies that oppress or discriminate against them.
Affirming identity and resilience: Learning about historical eugenics and discriminatory practices can be challenging, but it also highlights the resilience of marginalised communities in the face of adversity. It affirms their identity and showcases their strength in overcoming historical injustices.
Building critical thinking skills: Engaging marginalised groups in critical discussions about eugenics and its implications helps develop critical thinking skills. It enables them to recognise and critique harmful ideologies and actions, fostering a sense of agency to advocate for change.
Reclaiming narratives: By exploring collections like this and their ethical implications, marginalised groups can contribute to the reinterpretation of historical events from their perspectives. This fosters a sense of ownership over their history and heritage.
Inclusive learning environment: Engaging marginalised groups in these discussions demonstrates a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. It sends a powerful message that their voices are valued and that their perspectives are essential in shaping knowledge and understanding.
Benefits for all groups
Addressing historical injustices: Teaching difficult knowledge is an opportunity to acknowledge and address historical injustices. It encourages society to confront its past, learn from it, and work towards building a more equitable and inclusive future.
Fostering empathy and understanding: Engaging in discussions about eugenics and its impact on marginalised communities promotes empathy and understanding among participants from different backgrounds. It can help break down barriers and stereotypes, fostering a more compassionate society.
Encouraging advocacy for ethical innovation: Connecting historical eugenics with modern ethical concerns, such as Generative AI, highlights the significance of ethical considerations in technological advancements. This can inspire advocacy for responsible and inclusive innovation.
Promoting social change: Educating students about difficult historical knowledge empowers them to be agents of change. It equips student of all identities with knowledge to challenge discriminatory practices and work towards a more just and inclusive society.
Conclusion
Before the session
Consider your own rationale and approach to including difficult and sensitive topics in your teaching. How would you communicate this to students before a teaching session?
Develop your signposting for support before and after teaching with difficult collections. The impact of difficult and sensitive topics can extend beyond teaching sessions. How will you ensure that students experience psychological safety in the classroom even with difficult content?
Use experienced facilitators who can genuinely relate to the cohort they are engaging with. Provide facilitators with appropriate tools to scaffold the session and safeguard their well-being as they too could be affected by the session.
During the session
Devise agreements for the group together; emphasise engagement and interaction with kindness to foster an inclusive and respectful environment.
Highlight that UCL acknowledges its troubling eugenics past and now approaches this Collection and similar archives as educational tools, not celebrations of eugenicists. UCL is committed to ensuring students comprehend the historical context without endorsing or normalising eugenics as a valid scientific concept or ideology.
Show sensitivity to the potential profound impact of the objects on certain students. When revealing information about the objects, choose language thoughtfully. Provide students with the opportunity to reflect and offer the option to leave the room for emotional well-being.
Emphasise UCL's commitment to never again enable such harm, to learn from the mistakes of the past, and work to towards a future that upholds human rights, equity, and social justice for all.
After the session
Actively plan follow up activities and resources (where possible) following a session engaging with objects that link to distressing materials.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the UCL Discover Summer School team, led by Dr Manjula Patrick and Indie Beedie, and year 12 school students for allowing us to base a case study on their innovative and important work. Thanks also to Liz Blanks, the Science Collections curator, for allowing us to use objects from UCL’s Eugenics and Biometrics Collection.
Further resources
If you are interested in visiting the OBL, please contact the museums team (museums@ucl.ac.uk).
Additional resources to support the use of eugenics related objects in the OBL are available via the Science Collection webpages.
Several more ELEP case studies and toolkits are available on the ELEP website.
Read another case study from the Discover UCL Summer School, exploring tactile pedagogies.
There is an Inclusive Education Training Programme (designed by Dr Manjula Patrick) we recommend all staff and students work through.
There are a plethora of UCL teaching toolkits available to support teaching across and beyond UCL. This one is particularly relevant, 'Inclusive dialogue in education: a tutor's guide to facilitating constructive discourse'.
References
Katsui, Hisayo, Maija Koivisto, Pauli Rautiainen, Niina Meriläinen, Suvi-Maaria Tepora-Niemi, Päivi Rainò, Merja Tarvainen, and Heikki Hiilamo. "Eugenics and oralism as discrimination against deaf people." In Deaf People, Injustice and Reconciliation, pp. 49-90. Routledge.
Appendix
Staff reflections
Reflections of the activity lead
Preparedness:
With 11 years of experience leading this summer school and extensive work with deaf and hard-of-hearing communities, my expertise in inclusive practices extends to various marginalised groups. Yet, despite my familiarity with the audience, some student perspectives still surprised me.
One student suggested separating the emotional response to Galton from his positive inventions, drawing a parallel to the controversial work of Hans Asperger during the Third Reich. This unexpected viewpoint led to a discussion about whether innovation can be considered separately from the harmful intent behind it. In retrospect, we realised the need for deeper questioning—was there an awareness of Asperger’s collaboration with the Nazis in the murder of disabled children? Should we critically examine the celebration of figures like Asperger, whose foundational ideas about autism emerged from a regime intent on eradicating human diversity?
Notably, despite being deaf, the student appeared somewhat detached from the discriminatory views on disability promoted by eugenicists. This led us to question whether the presence of hearing individuals in the session and the inherent power hierarchies may have influenced responses. It also raised a broader reflection: could this distancing from one's disabled identity be a subtle but insidious consequence of ableism?
At the same time, we remain mindful that, at age 17, students are still developing their perspectives, making discussions like these a challenging but valuable learning experience.
Facilitation: The activity's success can be largely attributed to the expertise and experiences of the deaf facilitators, both in their lived experience and professional backgrounds, enabling them to effectively engage with the young participants. The mere presence of deaf adults fostered a sense of safety, encouraging students to participate openly. Collaboration with deaf colleagues was undoubtedly integral to the session's success. Facilitation by staff with lived and professional experience of working with young deaf people was key, and the presence of interpreters and captioners meant communication was not a barrier.
Personal reflection: I approached this activity with enthusiasm but also harboured concerns about using the Galton Collection with young deaf people. I wondered if the knowledge might be too challenging/harmful to them and how they would feel about UCL's connection to these objects. During the activity, I looked around the room and realised that many of us, including me, would not have been welcomed in a UCL space during Galton's time. It made me ponder who would occupy this space today if eugenicist ideologies had prevailed. As we concluded, I shared this observation with the group. While we were present in this space today, I acknowledged that all is not well. The legacy of historical harms is deeply woven into our identities, and discriminatory views and microaggressions, validated by figures like Galton, continue to pervade society, impacting us daily in various aspects of life. Despite these challenges, I firmly believe that this session had a positive impact. By embracing this transformative journey, the students were empowered to raise their voices with authority and potentially become catalysts for a more equitable and enlightened society.
Reflections of deaf facilitator (a former UCL student)
I found the activity very insightful; it was shocking in some ways to learn just how much UCL and those working within it were involved in developing the field of eugenics, but it was good to spend time reflecting on how things have changed and also haven’t changed in society. UCL has come a long way from Galton’s time but also in a lot of ways things haven’t changed- minoritised communities still face a lot of discrimination and inequity at UCL. As the university which housed the founding father of eugenics studies, we have an even greater responsibility to fight these injustices, and more could be done in a practical sense to action this.
It is important to teach on eugenics and other potentially challenging and emotive topics to ensure people understand they can be discussed in a safe way and learnt from. Topics like this could be deemed as so shocking that they become taboo, and people feel the subject and its impact have been forgotten but this type of session ensures we are remembering those who suffered and continue to do so due to Galton and his work.
This was a very thought provoking session, it would have been very useful in the introduction of the session just to make it clear that the speaker and UCL as an institution now is anti-discrimination and is working to be accessible (i.e. does not agree with Galton’s views) - it felt to me that this message came a little late and was under emphasised - and especially to young people who were being taught about eugenics some of them for the first time found it shocking rightly, but needed this clarified.
Authors: Dr Manjula Patrick, Indie Beedie and Helen Knowler
Editors: Shixi Lin, Elsa Wilbur, and Tor Wright.