Dangerous echoes in the language of power by Shanna Shepard

Every year the world marks the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a day meant to remind humanity of the devastating consequences of prejudice elevated into policy. It is not simply a ceremonial date on the calendar. It is a warning carved out of history, one that demands vigilance whenever the language of racial hierarchy resurfaces in public discourse.

In recent days remarks by Donald Trump invoking ideas reminiscent of Eugenics and notions of “genetic criminality” have reignited concerns about how easily discredited pseudoscience can creep back into political rhetoric. These ideas are not abstract theories; they are relics of a dark intellectual tradition that once justified forced sterilizations, racial segregation and even genocide. When such language appears in modern politics, it should set off alarms far beyond partisan divides.

Eugenics emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a movement claiming that society could be improved by controlling human reproduction. It wrapped prejudice in the language of science. Certain groups were labelled “inferior,” while others were deemed biologically superior. Governments in multiple countries embraced these theories, implementing policies that stripped people of autonomy over their bodies and lives. The ideology’s most infamous culmination came during the atrocities of the Holocaust, where racial pseudoscience became a foundation for systematic extermination.

That history is precisely why references to genetic explanations for criminal behaviour are so troubling today. Suggesting that crime or social problems are embedded in a group’s DNA is not just scientifically baseless; it also shifts responsibility away from social conditions, inequality, education and policy failures. Instead of addressing complex problems, it reduces them to biological destiny.

The danger lies not only in the idea itself but in the normalization of the language. When influential leaders speak casually about genetics determining morality or criminality, they lend legitimacy to narratives that have long been used to stigmatize minorities and immigrants. Words spoken from powerful platforms carry weight; they shape the boundaries of what becomes acceptable in public debate.

Some defenders dismiss such remarks as rhetorical exaggeration or political theater. But history shows that harmful ideas rarely arrive fully formed as policy. They begin as whispers, as metaphors, as supposedly offhand comments that test the limits of public tolerance. Once the language seeps into mainstream discussion, the step from words to actions becomes smaller than many would like to believe.

The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is meant to remind us that racism does not only manifest in overt acts of violence. It also appears in the assumptions embedded in political narratives, assumptions about who belongs, who is suspect and who is deemed biologically predisposed to wrongdoing.

In the end, this conversation is not merely about one politician. It is about the standards we expect from those who hold power and influence public thought. Leaders have the ability either to challenge prejudice or to quietly legitimize it.

History has already shown us what happens when pseudoscience and politics intertwine. Remembering that lesson is not political correctness; it is historical responsibility. And on a day dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination, that responsibility could not be clearer.