Talk:Edward Alsworth Ross

Coolie
I removed the reference to "coolie" labor because Chinese immigrants to the U.S., unlike in Latin America, did not arrive as "coolies" that bound them to an employer, but instead took out loans for their passage that they had to repay, just like immigrants from elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.172.172 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I put "coolie" back in, due to the nature of why he resigned. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No sense in removing mention of eugenics
Here is a typical quote randomly selected from Ross' work:


 * To the practised eye, the physiognomy of certain groups unmistakably proclaims inferiority of type. I have seen gatherings of the foreign-born in which narrow and sloping foreheads were the rule.  The shortness and smallness of the crania were very noticeable.  There was much facial asymmetry.  Among the women, beauty, aside from the fleeting, epidermal bloom of girlhood, was quite lacking.  In every face, there was something wrong -- lips thick, mouth coarse, upper lip too long, cheek-bones too high, chin poorly formed, the bridge of the nose hollowed, the base of the nose tilted, or else the whole face prognathous.  There were so many sugar-loaf heads, moon-faces, slit mouths, lantern-jaws, and goose-bill noses that one might imagine a malicious jinn had amused himself by casting human beings in a set of skew-molds discarded by the Creator.

TPaineTX (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * TPaineTX, while you are well within your rights to interpret the above incompletely referenced quote to indicate that Ross was an adherent to eugenics, your opinion (and mine) is irrelevant. This personal interpretation of text is what is called original research here, and is not permitted; it is one of our core editing policies. What is needed is an independent, third party specifically referring to Ross as an eugenics adherent - or a quote of Ross himself that specifically states he is a eugenicist. The quote you've provided doesn't say that; essentially, he's said these people are ugly, not that they should be forbidden to reproduce. Given the negative connotations of the term, I am going to remove it from the article again; however, I would have no objection to its re-inclusion (along with a paragraph describing how his adherence to eugenics coloured his work) with a proper reference from a reliable source.  Check out WP:REF to see what information is required for a complete reference (e.g., author, publisher, title, page number, etc.).  Risker (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a quote taken out of context. The entire book talks about which race/nationality is preferable to the other and how certain "lesser" races/nationalities ought to be kept from making a large impact on the collective gene pool.  Why don't you read The Old World in the New?  ( http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=wq0JAAAAIAAJ )  Even a brief skim over the material shows it to be a book dedicated to cataloging the different races and nationalities and their respective detrimental or beneficial impacts on the collective gene pool.  Here are the section headings of one of the chapters (American Blood and Immigrant Blood) within the book:


 * "Primitive types among the foreign-born"
 * "How immigration will affect good looks in this country"
 * "Effect of crossing on personal beauty"
 * "Stature and physique of the newer immigrants"
 * "Do they revitalize the American people?"
 * "Race morals of the Southern European stocks"
 * "Are the immigrants good samples of their own people?"
 * "Appraisal of the different ethnic strains in the American people"
 * "Rating of the present immigrant streams"
 * "How immigration has affected the fecundity of Americans"
 * "Evading a degrading competition by race suicide"
 * "The triumph of the low-standard elements over the high-standard elements"


 * This is obviously not a matter of conjecture or personal opinion. The book might as well be called Eugenics For Dummies. TPaineTX (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good reference, I've added the publisher and date. My check on Google Books shows this to come from page 105, which I will put into the reference. If you could verify that, it would be appreciated. Risker (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * yes; starting at 105. TPaineTX (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ross' statement of resignation
The following is the statement that Edward Ross gave for his resignation:

At the beginning of last May a representative of organized labor asked Dr. Jordan to be one of the speakers at a mass meeting called to protest against coolie immigration, and to present 'the scholar's view.' He was unable to attend, but recommended me as a substitute. Accordingly, I accepted, and on the evening of May 7th read a twenty-five minute paper from the platform of Metropolitan Hall in San Francisco. . . . I tried to show that owing to its high, Malthusian birth rate the Orient is the land of 'cheap men,' and that the coolie, though he can not outdo the American, can underlive him. I took the ground that the high standard of living that restrains multiplication in America will be imperiled if Orientals are allowed to pour into this country in great numbers before they have raised their standard of living and lowered their birth rate. I argued that the Pacific is the natural frontier of East and West, and that California might easily experience the same terrible famines as India and China if it teemed with the same kind of men. In thus scientifically co-ordinating the birth rate with the intensity of the struggle for existence, I struck a new note in the discussion of Oriental immigration which, to quote one of the newspapers, 'made a profound impression.' On May 18th, Dr. Jordan told me that quite unexpectedly to him Mrs. Stanford had shown herself greatly displeased with me, and had refused to re appoint me. He had heard from her just after my address on coolie immigration. He had no criticism for me and was profoundly distressed at the idea of dismissing a scientist for utterances within the scientist's own field. He made earnest representations to Mrs Stanford, and on June 2d I received my belated re-appointment for 1900-1. The outlook was such, however, that on June 5th I offered my resignation.

When I handed it in Dr. Jordan read me a letter which he had just received from Mrs. Stanford and which had, of course, been written without knowledge of my resignation. In this letter she insisted that my connection with the university end, and directed that I be given my time from January 1st to the end of the academic year. My resignation was not acted upon at once, and efforts were made by President Jordan and the president of the board of trustees to induce Mrs. Stanford to alter her decision. These proved unavailing, and on Monday, November 12th, Dr. Jordan accepted my resignation in the following terms:

'I have waited till now in the hope that circumstances might arise which would lead you to a reconsideration. As this has not been the case, I, therefore, with great reluctance, accept your resignation, to take effect at your own convenience. In doing so I wish to express once more the high esteem in which your work, as a student and a teacher, as well as your character as a man, is held by all your colleagues.'

Last year I spoke three times in public - once before a university extension centre on 'The British Empire,' once before a church on 'The Twentieth Century City,' and once before a mass-meeting on coolie immigration. To my utterances on two of these occasions objection has been made. It is plain, therefore, that this is no place for me. I can not with self-respect decline to speak on topics to which I have given years of investigation. It is my duty as an economist to impart, on occasion, to sober people, and in a scientific spirit, my conclusions on subjects with which I am expert, and if I speak I can not but take positions which are justified by statistics and by the experience of the Old World. . . . I am sorry to go, for I have put too much of my life into this university not to love it. My chief regret in leaving is that I must break the ties that bind me to my colleagues of seven years, and must part from my great chief, Dr. Jordan.

Progressingamerica (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Alsworth Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323000143/http://www2.asanet.org/governance/rossobit.pdf to http://www2.asanet.org/governance/rossobit.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710033550/http://www2.asanet.org/governance/ross.html to http://www2.asanet.org/governance/Ross.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The of family of Mr Ross doesn't know any of much of this to be true. Mr Ross 's granddaughter is still living and confirms this to be unknown to her
Mr Ross 's granddaughter is still living and confirms none of the Eugenics to be true or known of by the family. Jseven11 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)