transcending silence... 2005 Issue

Return to: Archives


Science and Its Implications on Race, Sex, and Ability


Sloane Kolt *



Science has been manipulated to validate the disenfranchisement of marginalized peoples. This paper analyzes several aspects of science and its relationship to biased conclusions of race, sex, and ability. It focuses on the emergence of eugenics as a counterfeit scientific study and the practice of sterilization as a product of eugenics. It examines the Pioneer Fund, which is a major source of racially motivated research, and its prejudiced approach towards science. Furthermore, this paper investigates how contemporary science and technology are reshaping how the practice of eugenics is executed. By providing virtually ‘painless’ opportunities for prospective parents to choose which children they will or will not have, these medical developments are threatening women and differently abled persons. These medical procedures are not acknowledged by society as eugenics because they are hidden under the specter of science. This paper also analyzes the debate on the appropriate use of bioethics within genetic engineering and what constitutes a moral use of these technologies.


Throughout history, science and technology (S&T) have had, and in the future will have, positive and negative consequences for humankind. It has been said that S&T is value-neutral and that inanimate technological inventions cannot harbor values….These claims are false, perhaps simplistic or perhaps simply beside the point. As the result of human activity, S&T is imbued with intention and purpose. The goals for which S&T are advanced are value-laden, reflecting the cultural, economical, ethical, spiritual, and moral frameworks of society. Technology follows social norms. S&T embodies the perspectives, purposes, prejudices, and objectives of society and of powerful social groups within society. [1

Science has offered the means for movement towards modernity. However, it has also been utilized for more devious purposes than the quest for pure knowledge and advancement. Science has provided an outlet for validating the disenfranchisement of marginal populations. Furthermore it has been used as a tool for validating certain concepts regarding ‘perfecting’ society and its populace. Internal facets of the use of science are often seen through the practices of sex selection and other forms of genetic engineering which in turn lead to a ‘more preferable’ circumstance for prospective parents. External factors of the use of science can be seen through the wider lens of eugenics in which the society ‘achieves’ a more idyllic overall population. Both internal and external aspects of ideal populations are made available by the use of science and technology.

In 1883 Francis J. Galton created the term ‘eugenics’ in his work Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. Combining the Greek words for well and born, Galton created a word that would inspire scientists to use heredity as an explanation for human behavior. However, Galton’s new creation was not his innovation; it was a culmination of centuries of concepts illuminating class differences and notions of ‘survival of the fittest.’ [2] Galton’s original hypothesis was based on what he described as "positive eugenics," which is, “suggesting, facilitating, predicting and even legally mandating biologically conducive marriages." [3] Positive eugenics encouraged desirable families to have more children. After Galton’s death the predominant theme changed to ‘negative eugenics,’ which implicated removing undesirable individuals from society. As Black comments, “The new tactics would include segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia—and ultimately extermination.” [4] It is within the realm of negative eugenics in which most applications of eugenics were and are applied.

Eugenics, Biased ‘Research’ and the Abomination of Sterilization

The study of eugenics is a perverted form of scientific discovery. In effect, the study of eugenics produces self-fulfilling prophecies for research that it conducts to legitimize its theories. The Pioneer Fund has been a source of eugenic study since its creation. The case study of J. Phillipe Rushton and Richard Lynn offer greater understanding of the distortion created by eugenic studies.

The Pioneer Fund was created in 1937. Its certificate of Incorporation declares that its purpose is to acquire funds:

To provide or aid in providing for the education of children of parents to have such qualities and traits of character as to make such parents of unusual value as citizens, and whose means are inadequate therefore, to provide financial aid for the support, training, and start of life for such children….The foregoing purposes shall be carried out in such a manner to give assurance to parents of the character described that their children shall not lack an adequate education or start in life and thus to encourage an increase in the number of parents, and in so far as the qualities and traits of such parents are inherited, to aid in improving the character of the people of the United States…To conduct or aid in conducting study and research into the problems of hereditary and eugenics in the human race. [5]

The Pioneer Fund has been a bastion for eugenics and the ‘study’ of racial differences. It is estimated that the Fund distributed more than $10 million between 1971 and 1992 and has annual income of about $1 million that is granted to approximately 20 beneficiaries a year. The Fund has a history with the Ku Klux Klan and the Southern White Citizens Councils. Yet, it also has grantees from prestigious universities, including Garrett Harding, a biological sciences professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Furthermore the Pioneer Fund has had firm support for the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has made efforts to eliminate undocumented immigration and reduce legal migration by half. FAIR’s efforts have provoked even greater xenophobia and stand in the way of immigrants’ status and rights in the United States. [6]

An example of a Pioneer Fund beneficiary is J. Phillipe Rushton. In The Science of Human Diversity, Lynn (2001) describes the work of J. Phillipe Rushton, whose research was primarily based on racial differences in intelligence and sexual behavior. Rushton conducted a study with African students from the University of Witwatersand in South Africa and concluded that their IQ’s had an average score of 85. The author further notes that, since the subjects were college students, one could assume that their intelligence is one standard deviation above that of the broad inhabitants in Africa, limiting the IQ of that population to an average of 70.

What Lynn neglects to mention is the social and racial stratification that exists in South Africa. During the time that Rushton’s research was being conducted, Apartheid was still in effect. The obstacle of unequal education among other disadvantages seems wholly ignored in the study. Furthermore, the reliability of IQ and other standardized tests has been highly questionable as being unfavorable toward non-whites. [7] Even Alfred Binet, who is considered to be the founder of intelligence tests, did not have confidence in the theory of, “intelligence as a unitary mental function.”[8] Surprisingly, Evan and Waites (1981) also note that Lynn had admitted that global differences among test scores could not be considered equal due to cultural dissimilarities. [9] Yet both Lynn and Rushton continue to use IQ as a valid measure of intelligence.

Rushton examined the sizes of “Mongoloid,” “European Caucasoid,” and “Negroid” skulls. He concluded that “Mongoloid,” “European Caucasoid,” and “Negroid” skulls were respectively arranged from largest to smallest and he additionally observed U.S. Army personnel uniforms for helmet size and arrived at the same conclusion. [10] This was another use of ‘proving’ intellectual superiority over people of African descent. However, evidence as to how brain size correlates to intelligence is omitted. It is also important to recognize Lynn’s usage of the words “Caucasoid”, “Negroid”, and “Mongoloid,” as this relates to the self-fulfilling prophesy of his work, because he already assumes that racial classifications biologically differ from one group to the next.

Rushton additionally explored racial differences along the lines of reproductive strategies and sexual behavior. He formulated a theory in 1985 which was identified using the variables r (sizeable numbers of young with little parental participation) and K (smaller numbers of young with much parental participation). [11] He then employed this theory on human behavior.

His thesis is that humans evolved first in Africa as a moderately K-species. Some human groups subsequently migrated into Europe and Asia, where they evolved into the Caucasoids and Mongoloids. During this evolution they evolved stronger K-characteristics than the Negroid peoples who remained in Africa, and the Mongoloids evolved more pronounced K-characteristics than the Caucasoids. His theory proposes that the underlying Mongoloid—Caucasoid—Negroid gradient in r – K lifestyles explains their differences in brain size, intelligence, time of maturation, degree of sexual restraint, fertility, incidence of dizygotic twins, monogamy, mental health, lawabidingness, and anxiety. [12]

All of these interpretations are theories, and they remain unproven. Rushton’s work takes on the guise of science; however, his work is camouflaged racism against people of African decent. His creation yields the impression of scientific study and yet he is not capable of quantifying his research in a methodical manner.

The author comments that Rushton looked at data regarding the incidence of AIDS and HIV across these racial lines and found that African populations have higher prevalence of the infection. [13] However the significant socioeconomic differences were not examined. One must note, when comparing occurrence of AIDS and HIV between societies, the significance or lack of medical care, access to birth control, and social custom. Furthermore, until recently most African governments denied the existence of AIDS as a feigned creation of western powers to be used as a weapon of neo-colonialism. Because of this, African governments did not educate their populations to the dangers of HIV/AIDS, which is seen as a major foundation of the AIDS pandemic in Africa. [14] It is clear that Rushton was not thorough in his study in this regard. Throughout his research, he does not address fundamental issues with the subjects in which he is studying.

The incidence of ‘researchers’ such as Rushton, who are active participants in eugenic organizations, displays the abuses upon scientific discovery where science is used as a weapon against marginalized peoples. ‘Science,’ as it is presented by the Pioneer Fund and other eugenicists, created a monolithic reaction towards encouragement of ‘elites’ to procreate and a further backlash towards women’s advancements:

That the education of women seemed to lower their desired number of children seemed, well, unfortunate, ‘If child-bearing women must be intellectually handicapped,’ wrote [Karl] Pearson, in a rather ominous hypothetical, ‘then the penalty to be paid for race-predomination is the subjection of women.' [15]

Ironically, the same logic used to exclude ‘inferior races’ were acceptable attributes for elite women. In this sense a woman of the ‘imperial race’ is excused for a ‘deficiency of intelligence,’ which was presumed to be due to a lack of education; Whereas other racial identities would not be forgiven for such abominations and instead enforced prejudicial views against the ‘others.’ This statement, in essence, nullifies the base in which eugenic studies are rooted. It demonstrates by implication that, with schooling, a woman is most likely not intellectually handicapped. Therefore, all other things being equal, the same would apply to the marginalized people in which eugenicists were and are attempting to eradicate.

The advent of eugenics allowed for the atrocious procedure known as sterilization. In 1887 the first published proposal towards sterilization came from the Cincinnati Sanitarium superintendent directed towards inmates. 1893 brought the recommendation of Dr. F.E. Daniel, “Who recommended castration of gay men…for ‘the purpose of race improvement.’ The Michigan state legislature considered, but failed to pass, the county’s first eugenic sterilization bill in 1897. That distinction went to Indiana in 1907.” [16]

In 1927 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of states' ‘rights’ concerning sterilization in the 8-to-1 Buck v. Bell decision. In this court case a young woman named Carrie Buck, who had been impregnated when she was raped by the nephew of her guardian, was then sent to a mental health institution on the basis of immorality. In this case, the fact that Buck was raped was used as the basis of her classification as immoral, which at that time was an established symptom of mental impairment. This resulted in a debate on the legality of sterilizing her that reached the U.S. Supreme Court which, “Upheld the state’s right to sterilize, ruling that Buck was ‘the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring.’” [17] These laws allowed for the involuntary sterilization of many mental institution and prison inmates. Even by the 1970’s twenty-seven states still had sterilization statutes in legislation. [18]

More recent developments involve the use of semi-permanent/permanent birth control methods. Previous sterilization occurred through tubal ligation and, in other cases, hysterectomies. In 1992, the drug Depo-Provera was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States. Two years later, the FDA approved an implant called Norplant. Before their endorsements, they were used on women in developing nations, often without their knowledge or consent. Ordover (2003) points out specific cases: “In the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, and Egypt, some women were not even told that the Norplant must be removed after five years. Failure to remove the implants can result in ectopic pregnancy, a leading cause of death among pregnant women.” [19]

Once again, women of color find themselves at the top of the list for those receiving Depo-Provera and Norplant. These drugs are being marketed to African-American women in popular magazines. Native Americans are also feeling a coercion to participate in using Depo-Provera and Norplant. Furthermore, Indian Health Services [IHS] is currently using high pressure tactics to push Depo-Provera and Norplant as it once pushed sterilizations. According to Charon Asetoyer of Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center, "not only does IHS withhold information on Norplant’s drawbacks, it fails to administer required preprocedure pregnancy tests. A woman’s mere presence at an IHS clinic, she stated, is read as consent to implants or injection.” [20]

Science, Sex and Ability – The New Frontier of Bioethics

Race is not the only construct in which science has been garnering attention. Genetic selection has become increasingly popular. In the case of sex, genetic preference is considered sex selection. In the case of ability, genetic preference is considered deselection of disability. Recent scientific and technological advancements have brought easier access to eradication of ‘unwanted’ offspring. These trends involve the combination of science and technology, and have introduced the practice of genetic screening and engineering. Procedures such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis have offered prospective parents ‘painless’ options to eliminated unwanted sex-specific and/or differently abled children.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a procedure in which the differential abilities, disease and/or sex of an embryo is determined or screened before implantation into the uterus. Other less technologically invasive procedures are prenatal diagnosis and amniocentesis, which can result in abortion of an 'undesirable fetus.’ [21]

Sex selection and disability deselection are perpetually intertwined. They both rely on removal of the binary ‘other’ to the default condition. With regards to sex, the ‘other’ is almost always the female, and with regards to ability, the ‘other’ is the differently abled or ‘diseased’ person. Each eliminates the ‘subnormal’ condition, and concurrently an argument for or against either of these are inevitably intertwined.

It is becoming ever more common to screen for ableness and sex of a child. At the same time there is increasing legislation of such practices. In India, the Supreme Court ordered the government to enforce laws that forbid prenatal sex screening. By 2001 in the Punjab region, the ratio of females to males was an astonishing 100 to 126. [22] This number compared to the current ratio in the United States of 100 to 105, which the President's Council on Bioethics (2003) deems a high number, is an incredible artificial creation by scientific interference. India is not alone in legislating genetic selection and deselection. Other countries have enacted similar legislation; for example the United Kingdom enacted regulations on differently abled deselection.

In the UK, Section 37 of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act constituted an amendment to the 1967 Abortion Act…Whilst stating that a termination of pregnancy could be carried out on therapeutic and social grounds up to 24 weeks, it stipulated a number of conditions under which that limit would not apply, which included ‘substantial risk’ that the child born would be ‘seriously handicapped’. However, there are many areas of disagreement as to whether a line can, or should, be drawn, about what constitutes a severe handicap, and about who should be involved in making such decisions. [23]

The definition of ‘where to draw the line’ in relation to prenatal screening is increasingly difficult to determine. The Williams et al. (2002) study shows the prevailing attitudes among health professionals are consistent with an ethical intention of screening for extreme life threatening situations such as, “Lesch–Nyhan syndrome, which results in early and painful death, to ectrodactyly, which involves a partial fusion of the bones of the fingers or toes.” [24] However, there is a great deal of disagreement thereafter. As with many other social issues, the occurrence of prenatal screening carries with it a host of controversy.

One of the prevailing issues is who determines where the ‘line’ gets drawn. Some of those in the Williams’ study felt that only parents could make a decision pertaining to possible abortion based on a ‘severe handicap.’ Others felt that doctors and medical professionals, having superior knowledge of disease and ‘disability,’ should determine what is ethical. Still others feel that, “disabled people, not doctors, are the real experts on the disability, because of their personal experience of living with impairments.” [25]

Another problem is that a case by case basis might yield significantly different results. Individual patient preferences may generate very different views upon prenatal screening. Defining what is and what is not a ‘severe handicap’ changes from situation to situation, from doctor to doctor and from parent to parent. One obstetrician in the Williams study (2002) comments, “I think it’s difficult to draw lines because if you then say, ‘OK, if you have a cleft palate you can’t have a termination of pregnancy’, there will be some individuals for whom you feel it would be justified. I mean, I’ve seen a woman who had a cleft lip and palate herself, her first child had a cleft lip and palate, she had another baby with a cleft lip and palate, and she said, ‘I want a termination.' Now who am I to say to her that I know more about cleft lip and palate than she does.” [26]

But Wolbring would argue that there is an “argument [that] says that sex selection is wrong because it is not a disease…This argument is not an ethical argument but rather a ‘hierarchy’ argument. Someone decides, based on his or her prejudices and power, that testing for one characteristic is all right but testing for another characteristic is not.” [27] Legislating prenatal screening becomes increasingly difficult for this reason.

Many would argue against aborting a fetus because of a cleft lip, as it can be seen as a ‘cosmetic’ rather than a disabling deviation. Wolbring connects sex selection and able ness in terms of cosmetics in that,

[An] argument sees sex selection leading to ‘designer babies,’ trivializing the selection procedure and leading to selection based on ‘cosmetic reasons’…However, one could ask, What is cosmetic? Cosmetic is something based on established norms. Is it cosmetic to have no legs, to be shorter, to be obese, to have black hair, to be intelligent, or to have blue eyes? Is the term cosmetic another synonym for characteristics not affecting abilities? This leads to the following questions: Which abilities are needed that still fit within acceptable variations from the norm, and which don’t? Who decides what are cosmetics? The same questions have to be raised for the usage of the term designer baby. [28]

This contention presents cosmetics as an unethical use of genetic engineering and manipulation; however, one must also consider the specific circumstances noted by the obstetrician in the Williams (2002) study.

Wolbring (2003) contends that biogenetic technology is a consumer good ‘sold’ to people who wish to find freedom from their hereditary biological constraints. In this manner people can eliminate ‘subnormal’ attributes that are genetically possessed. At the same time one wonders what effect these measures have on those who already exist as female or with a different ability. In reference to people born with Down Syndrome, Andrew Brown of Amnesty International states, "If society regards the presence of such disease as an acceptable reason for aborting a fetus, this makes it harder to preserve equality of respect for those already born. One might argue that their human worth, if not their human rights, have been diminished...By deselecting a ‘disability’ one is further marginalizing those in existence with that given ‘disability.’" [29]

Different cultures have different definitions of what constitutes a disease or a disability. Wolbring (2003) remarks that disease is a social construct. He uses homosexuality to demonstrate the socially created paradigm of disease. “In different cultural or societal settings, different characteristics will be seen as diseases. One prime example is that homosexuality is seen in some settings as a disease and in others as a trait or lifestyle. " [30]

Wolbring (2003) makes an important point of the participation of mothers in sex selection. The use of submission in a society leads mothers to accept the values of the predominant societal beliefs. In the specific case of sex selection, the existence of patriarchy makes it so that one cannot truly know what a mother really wants because the social system obscures the mother’s true desires. “The fact that those whose interests are sacrificed—usually women—often concur in a community practice such as sex selection or genital mutilation does not establish ethical validity for that practice. In the history of oppression, including slavery, the oppressed often identified with the values of the oppressors.” [31]


Science has offered the world a way out of our mortality and a bridge towards our goals of youth and ‘health’, but what is it that defines these characteristics and what are the consequences of these actions? Science is a powerful tool that can create marvels of modern medicine, and at the same time it can be the degradation of masses of people. It is not value-neutral despite its assertions of impartiality. The study of eugenics provides the illusion of science to justify prejudicial notions of race. Some supporters of eugenics based their belief in the practice for the betterment of society by reducing poverty; however, eugenics does not solve the problem of poverty but instead further marginalizes those who are already oppressed. Negative eugenics, in particular, tyrannizes those who are deemed unfit for society and often passes the boundaries of physical harm, as it does in the case of sterilization.

Genetic engineering is guiding a new path for eugenics. Science is creating an outlet for parents to make “designer babies”. Concurrently, genetic selection is enabling parents and medical professionals to get rid of ‘unwanted’ children in the form of sex selection and disability deselection. This process serves to additionally subordinate those born female or differently abled; however, the same science can enable an infertile parent to conceive. As Lane (2004) notes, despite its more devious purposes, such as sex selection, pre-natal genetic diagnosis aids infertile patients; therefore, society should not discard the practice.

Science can make the seemingly impossible possible. It can help ease the suffering of those infirmed and offer a means to prolonged life. On the other hand, it can just as easily allow unthinkable practices to occur under the guise of advancement. The importance of science, however, is not lost due to its abuses. The study of eugenics is a quasi-science, as it creates a false impression of scientific discovery and distorts findings in a biased manner. The combination of eugenics and genetic selection is an extremely dangerous arrangement. Although scientists often boast their objectivity, it is clear that achieving that objectivity is a nearly unattainable task. American children are taught very young that science is objective, which allows society to overlook scientific prejudice. In order for science to secure an ethical grounding, scientists must recognize the influences of political and societal pressures that set predispositions within the discipline.


1. Gregor Wolbring, “Disability Rights Approach Toward Bioethics?” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4 no. 3 (2003). (Return

2. Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 9-16. (Return)

3. Black, 18. (Return)

4. Black, 19. (Return)

5. Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, “Pioneer Fund Certificate of Incorporation,” <> (accessed May 4, 2005). (Return)

6. Nancy Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 46-49. (Return)

7. Ordover, xv. (Return)

8. Brian Evans and Bernard Waites, IQ and Mental Testing: An Unnatural Science and its Social History (Hong Kong: Macmillan Press, 1981), 2. (Return)

9. Evans and Waites, 133-134. (Return)

10. Richard Lynn, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (Latham: University Press of America, 2001), 366-367. (Return)

11. Lynn, 370. (Return)

12. ibid. (Return)

13. Lynn, 372-373. (Return)

14. Shula Marks, “An Epidemic Waiting to Happen? HIV/AIDS in South Africa in Social and Historical Perspective” (lecture, University at Albany, Albany, NY, April 15,2005). (Return)

15. Nancy Folbre, “Sleeping Beauty Awakes: Self Interest, Feminism, and Fertility in the Early Twentieth Century,” Social Research, 71 no. 2 (2004). (Return)

16. Ordover, 133-134. (Return)

17. Ordover, 135. (Return)

18. Ordover, 134. (Return)

19. Ordover, 181. (Return)

20. Ordover, 183. (Return)

21. Melissa Lane, “Bioethics, Health, and Inequality.” Lancet, v. 364, no. 9439 (2004): 1017-1019. (Return)

22. Carol Anne Douglass, “India: Court orders action on sex-selection abortions.” Off Our Backs, 31 no. 6 (2001): 3. (Return)

23. C. Williams, P. Alderson, and B. Farsides, “’Drawing the line’ in prenatal screening and testing: health practitioners’ discussions.” Health, Risk & Society, 4 no. 1 (2002). (Return)

24. ibid.. (Return)

25. ibid. (Return)

26. ibid. (Return)

27. Gregor Wolbring, “Disability Rights Approach Toward Bioethics?” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4 no. 3 (2003). (Return)

28. ibid. (Return)

29. ibid.. (Return)

30. ibid. (Return)

31. ibid. (Return)


Black, Edwin. (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003.

Douglas, Carol Anne. “India: Court orders action on sex-selection abortions.” Off Our Backs. 31, no.6 (2001): 3.

Evans, Brian, and Bernard Waites. IQ and Mental Testing: An Unnatural Science and its Social History. Hong Kong: Macmillan Press, 1981.

Folbre, Nancy. “Sleeping Beauty Awakes: Self Interest, Feminism, and Fertility in the Early Twentieth Century.” Social Research. 71, no.2 (2004): 343-356.

Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. “Pioneer Fund Certificate of Incorporation.” <> (accessed May 4, 2005).

Lane, Melissa. Bioethics, Health, and Inequality. Lancet. 364 no.9439 (2004): 1017-1019.

Lynn, Richard. The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. Latham: University Press of America, 2001.

Marks, Shula. “An Epidemic Waiting to Happen? HIV/AIDS in South Africa in Social and Historical Perspective” Keynote Address, Phi Alpha Theta 25th Annual Distinguished Lecture, University at Albany, Albany, NY, April 15, 2005.

Ordover, Nancy. American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

The Presidents Council on Bioethics. “Session 4: Beyond Therapy: Controlling Sex of Children.” 16 January 2003. <> (accessed March8, 2005).

Williams, C., P. Alderson, and B. Farsides. ‘Drawing the line’ in prenatal screening and testing: health practitioners’ discussions. Health, Risk & Society. 4 no.1 (2002): 61-75. (accessed March 8, 2005).

Wolbring, Gregor. (2003). Disability Rights Approach Toward Bioethics? Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 4 no.3 (2003): 174-180.


 Sloane Kolt is a senior at University at Albany  majoring in Business Administration with 
concentrations in Financial Analysis, Political Science, and Women's Studies. Sloane will be 
graduating in the Spring of 2007.  Her post graduation plans include graduate school for her
career in law. (Return)

Back to Top