No, it isn’t. Eugenics is about changing genetic distributions, and low-income is not a genetically passed trait. If you ONLY gave the free condoms to black students at those schools and encouraged the white students to not use condoms, then I’d agree with you. Or if you only gave the condoms to kids who weren’t getting good grades or were bad at sports, then I’d agree with you.
But blindly giving out condoms to a large population without any look at genetics is not eugenics.
How exact does it need to be? There are plenty of ways to collect and organize the data. There are plenty of low-income schools. If you only gave out free condoms at the ones that were 90% black (but given to all students there), would that count?
Hell, providing free condoms to low-income public schools is eugenics and we all agree that it’s a good thing
No, it isn’t. Eugenics is about changing genetic distributions, and low-income is not a genetically passed trait. If you ONLY gave the free condoms to black students at those schools and encouraged the white students to not use condoms, then I’d agree with you. Or if you only gave the condoms to kids who weren’t getting good grades or were bad at sports, then I’d agree with you.
But blindly giving out condoms to a large population without any look at genetics is not eugenics.
How exact does it need to be? There are plenty of ways to collect and organize the data. There are plenty of low-income schools. If you only gave out free condoms at the ones that were 90% black (but given to all students there), would that count?