(silence)
Maybe I have to give a little 
introduction, because maybe some 
people don't know the background, 
but Leilani put a case in the court against 
the Alberta government... was it 1998?
Leilani Muir: '95.
Martin: '95. And this brought to light 
the practices of the Alberta Eugenics Board 
which were pretty atrocious to say the 
least. And the justice who ruled in your 
case, Justice Thype, agreed that they 
were totally outrageous. That board was 
chaired by a professor from the University
 of Alberta, John McEachran. John 
McEachran was one of the really original
 professors of the University of Alberta. 
He established both the departments of
 psychology and philosophy here, which 
were united for a while. So he was an 
outstanding figure in the history of the 
university and certainly contributed
 a lot to this university. 
There were prizes established in his name,
 two of which were awarded by the 
philosophy department to deserving students.
 And then the findings which came 
out of Leilani's case came to light and
 the philosophy department decided to 
reconsider its involvement in giving
 those prizes. A subcommittee of which I was 
a part gave a report recommending that 
the department dissociate itself from the 
prizes. And the department did that. It
took us quite a long time to get the 
university administration to agree with us.
 Finally, we had a meeting with Doug 
Oram who was vice president of academic,
 I believe, and he questioned us to 
make sure we had decent reasons and 
then said at the end of the meeting, 
"Alright, we'll do away with them" 
period. And that was what happened.
Now, I'm looking back on that now after
all these years and I'm thinking about the 
questions the ethical dilemmas which 
arose in making that decision. I still
 think it 
was the right decision, but I have a lot
of thoughts one way or the other about it. 
And this paper is largely my going through
my thoughts on the whole thing and 
what a complicated issue it is and ending 
up generally with a kind of negative 
view about the extent to which philosophical
 ethics can have a role here. I hate to 
say that being a philosopher, but I think 
it is more limited than I thought at first. 
Ok, so, Professor John McEachran, one of
the first professors at the University of 
Alberta and at one time its provost, 
established the departments of psychology 
and philosophy and chaired from 1929 to
 1965 the Alberta Eugenics board, 
which approved sterilizations of inmates
in public institutions here in Alberta. I 
shall take it as established that the 
so-called science of eugenics was more 
ideology than genuine science and that 
the way the committee went about 
approving the sterilization of people, 
particularly on native people was careless in 
the extreme and actually went  beyond 
what the committee was authorized by 
law to do. In other words, the committee
 committed gross violations of what both 
then and now would have been considered
 the legal and moral rights of the 
individuals sterilized. 
Nor was it a short-term program. Rather
 it continued in existence for several 
decades. Nothing I say here is intended
 to cast any doubt on the correctness of 
Justice Thypes conclusion in the case of
 Leilani Muir, which she stated this way: 
"The circumstances of Ms. Muir's 
sterilization were so high-handed and 
contemptuous of the statutory authority
 to effect sterilization and were undertaken 
in an atmosphere with so little respect
 of the plaintiff's dignity that the 
community's and the court's sense of 
decency was offended." As I say, nothing I 
say here is meant to cast any doubt 
whatsoever on that. I am completely in 
agreement with the justice in that.
At the time, I assumed as given that a
 prize given in the name of someone is 
intended to honor the memory of that
 same person, although of course its 
primary purpose is to enable the department
 and the university to honor students 
who have performed at a very high level
 in their studies. Perhaps someone will 
ask, however, whether awarding prizes
 bearing McEachran's name, does in fact 
amount to honoring him. Is it not the 
original donors who are honoring his 
memory, while the department and university
 are merely taking advantage of 
their bequest to honor students? But 
certainly in making these awards, the 
department and university agree to assist
 in the honoring of the person in whose 
name they are given. Nor would they 
make awards in the name of some known 
outrageous criminal, no matter how much
 money was involved in the bequest. Or 
at least I hope they wouldn't. In other
 words, by going along with the desires of 
the donors to honor McEachran's memory,
 the department and university in 
effect put their own nihil opstadt on
 the intentions of the donors and become at 
least complicit in the honoring of Professor McEachran.
