Luigi Berinde – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

The Parisian Protests

Perhaps, recently, you have seen TikToks, videos, or news broadcasts discussing the ongoing protests in Paris. If you are not sure what is going on, do not fright. In this blog, I will discuss this topic and hopefully help bring to light what the current French demonstrations mean.

What is Article 49.3?

The Arc De Triomphe — (source: yahoo images)

Before we can get to discussing the protests in Paris, we must first talk about a crucial fact about the protests: the fact that they started due to a feature of the French Constitution. Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, put lightly, allows the government to push through a piece of legislation without the approval of France’s lower house of parliament, the National Assembly.

This legal maneuver is completely legal and has been in practice since 1958, when it was introduced by Charles De Gaulle. Despite this, many French citizens see Article 49.3 as undemocratic. This is not a surprising assertion, as using Article 49.3 forgoes one of the most rudimentary components of democracy—votes.

However, the government is not completely unchecked. After Article 49.3 is used, lawmakers who oppose the published legislation have 24 hours to file a no-confidence motion against the government. A one-tenth majority amongst the lawmakers in the lower house is required for the motion to go to the floor where it is debated. For the next couple of days, debate and voting about the bill will take place amongst the politicians.

For the no-confidence motion to succeed and reject the bill, it must get an absolute majority of votes. That is, more than half of the lawmakers must vote to reject the bill pushed forward by Article 49.3. If the motion does not get an absolute majority, the motion fails and the bill remains.

Notably, successful no-confidence motions are rare in France. The reasoning for this is that a successful no-confidence bill not only stops a bill from being enacted, but removes the Prime Minister and Cabinet from office (the president remains). Due to this, many lawmakers who are loyal to their higher-ups in government may hesitant in voting in favor of the no-confidence motion, as it will end up “toppling” the government.

Interestingly, since Article 49.3 was legitimized in 1958, only one successful no-confidence motion has ever passed. It was in 1962.

The Protests

Paris in the summertime — (source: yahoo images)

Now that we have constructed an understanding of the French legal system, we can look into exactly what has sparked protests and how Article 49.3 was involved.

On March 16, 2023, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, pushed a bill via Article 49.3 that raised the retirement age in France from 62 to 64. This sparked widespread protests in Paris, the capital of France, as citizens deemed this move by Macron to be undemocratic. Allegedly, Macron used Article 49.3 because he calculated that his bill would not pass if it went to the National Assembly. Interestingly, it has been reported that this move was an unprecedented move by Macron, as even members of his own party urged him not to invoke Article 49.3.

As has been aforementioned, after Macron’s move, citizens took to the streets of Paris and began protesting. Garbage fires, road blockages, and even graffiti were some of the things conducted by the protestors. In fact, the protests were so widespread at some point that visitors arriving at Charles De Gaulle, France’s biggest airport, were unable to order rides into the city as roads were blocked.

Therefore, it ought not to be surprising that lawmakers instantly filed a no-confidence motion against Macron and his bill. However, after debate and deliberation, the no-confidence motion was unsuccessful, which falls aligns with the motion’s typical fate. On March 20th, the motion was voted on and only received 278 votes out of the 287 votes required to nullify the bill and unseat the government.

Moving Forward

What the failure of the no-confidence motion means, we have yet to find out. However, what we do know is that moving forward, the bill proposing the change in the retirement age from 62 to 64 will become law. Currently, protests are still ongoing in Paris. Whether or not they will continue, we have yet to find out. Moreover, what lawmakers will do about the fact that their constituents are protesting a bill is also unknown.

However, this series of events in France has raised a meaningful question: how much authority do the people of a nation have over the government? Should the people dictate how the government is run? Does government reflect the people, or do the people reflect the government?

Empirically, it seems that the majority of the French oppose this bill. Yet, despite this, it was not only enacted by their president, but it failed to be overturned by lawmakers. However, if there is one motif the French have instilled in history, it is the motif of representation of the people. One only needs to look to the French Revolution, and all of the many revolutions afterward, to be remained of the fact that the French take pride in their nationality, and will simply not rest until the government reflects the ideals of the people.

Want to interact with NGOs? Here are some to consider!

Naturally, many human rights violations and atrocities leave one wondering, “What can I do to ensure these violations do not happen again?” Unfortunately, however, many don’t know how to help to support human rights and a lot of information online is convoluted. This in turn causes charities and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which seek to promote humanitarian efforts, to often get overshadowed by bad news.

In this blog, I will share notable charities and initiatives that one could support in an effort to make a difference in the world.

Human Rights Watch

(source: yahoo images)

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an organization that investigates and reports on human rights violations and atrocities throughout the world. The advocacy of Human Rights Watch, as said by them, is directed towards “governments, armed groups and businesses, pushing them to change or enforce their laws, policies and practices.”

Moreover, Human Rights Watch does not accept any sort of funding from the government or corporations, as they seek to remain unbiased and bipartisan. The organization is complied of over 400 lawyers and human rights experts, and they would be a great organization to help out with donations.

Human Rights Watch prides itself on its transparency in its affairs, and it was thus awarded the Guidestar Platinum Seal of Transparency, an award given by an organization that “gathers, organizes, and distributes information about U.S nonprofits in an effort to advance transparency, enable users to make better decisions, and encourage charitable giving.”

Moreover, if that was not enough to show you the commitment of Human Rights Watch, allow us to make note that in 1997, they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for helping create the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty — a piece of legislation that brought about newfound protection to citizens from bombs which previously “killed and maimed indiscriminately.”

Therefore, with all of the aforementioned facts in mind, donating to Human Rights Watch would be a sure way in bringing about change and ensuring that human rights violations get exposed, lessened, and stopped.

Amnesty International

(source: yahoo images)

Amnesty International is one of the most influential and famous nongovernmental organizations in the world. Amnesty International, simply put, could be defined by its mission statement: “[we are] a global movement of more than 10 million people who take injustice personally. We are campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.” Amnesty International, like Human Rights Watch, is primarily funded by its supporters – not governments or political institutions.

Moreover, Amnesty International is both unbiased and bipartisan – they simply just seek to ensure all people enjoy human rights. Amnesty International functions by lobbying governments to ensure they keep their promises and passions for human rights; investigate and expose all violations that occur in the world, despite of where or what might have happened; and seek to educate and mobilize all people who wish to learn more about human rights.

Amnesty International was founded more than 50 years ago when the owner, Peter Benenson, saw two Portuguese students jailed for raising a toast to freedom in 1961. Since then, Amnesty International has been one of the most prominent and respected NGOs on the scene, and they have accomplished a lot.

In just 2022 alone, Amnesty International has helped free individuals who were imprisoned unjustly and ensured that human rights abusers got locked up. Moreover, Amnesty International was a driving force behind the decriminalization of Abortion in Colombia. Needless to say, Amnesty International’s impact, passion, and dedication to human rights is incredibly influential, and donating to their cause would definitely help bring about good changes.

Human Rights First

Egypt's desert mountains — (source: yahoo images)

Human Rights First (HRF) was established in 1978, with the mission of “[ensuring] that the United States is a global leader on human rights.” Human Rights First is centered in the United States, but it conducts a multitude of work abroad to ensure that “human wrongs are righted.”

Human Rights First has been involved in a lot of international political affairs which sought to eradicate injustice and, as they put it, human wrongs. For instance, in 1988, Human Rights First initiated its Lawyer-to-Lawyer network, which was an initiative that helped ensure all lawyers that have been imprisoned unjustly internationally are released. As of now, the program has worked with over 8000 lawyers in over 130 countries.

In addition to helping create the International Criminal Court, Human Rights First also helped establish the Fair Labor Association in 1999. This Association brought together over 60 major companies, such as Nike and Adidas, to help set workplace standards for industries throughout the world. In doing so, Human Rights First helped ensure that those who work for major international companies are not going to face hardships or disparity in their workplace environment.

Human Rights First, in addition to all that has been mentioned, has been a major actor in the anti-torture movement. In 2009, Human Rights First stood beside President Obama when he signed the executive order banning all torture in the United States. Then, in 2015, Human Rights First sought to make Obama’s order even more powerful and impactful. After the release of the Torture Report, Human Rights First was able to gain public support and then work with Senators McCain and Feinstein to craft what they consider to be the “strongest anti-torture law in U.S. history.”

Needless to say, Human Rights First is an incredibly dedicated, driven, and successful organization, which has had years of successful changes in the world of human rights. You definitely would not go wrong by donating or supporting them.

Summary

Beautiful nature scenery — (source: yahoo images)

In summary, human rights is a very complicated topic that is often convoluted and hard to understand through the media. Due to this, many do not always know what is the best way to donate and help out, despite wanting to. In this blog, I have listed multiple different organizations that have a proven history of success and change, and I thus hope to have made the process of getting involved in human rights easier.

If more people are involved in human rights, more change will happen, and more people internationally will have access to these same rights. It is my hope that, one day, human rights will be as accessible to everyone on this planet as oxygen is. This will only happen with support, and that is exactly what I hope to have urged you to do in this blog — support the NGOs which fight for human rights.

A Brief Judicial History of Religious Freedom

The first line of the first amendment in the Constitution of the United States, also known as the Establishment clause, asserts that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This clause, although seemingly simple in nature, has been the root of many judicial battles throughout the United States’ history. Religion, as a human right, has always been a topic of political debate.

One might inquire as to why this is the case: what makes the freedom of religion such a sensitive topic? In this blog, I seek to answer this question by outlining fundamental cases which have shaped how our legislators interpret our right to religion. Moreover, this blog shall conclude with how our fundamental right to religion is being interpreted today, as well as what is potentially in store for religious interpretation in the future.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) | Introduction of the Lemon Test

US constitution — (source: yahoo images)

Our journey begins in 1971, with the landmark Supreme Court Case of Lemon v. Kurtzman which involved the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The issue materialized when both of the aforementioned states decided to introduce legislation that would use taxpayer money to fund church-affiliated schools. In doing so, the government funds would pay for teacher salaries, textbook costs, and many other educational materials. Funding church-affiliated schools could be construed as a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court followed this logic, and with an 8-1 ruling, they decided to strike down the legislation passed by Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, no longer allowing state funds to go to church-affiliated schools.

What is particularly remarkable about this case is that it formally introduced the so-called Lemon Test, a judicial test constructed to see if legislation defies the Establishment Clause. The Lemon Test has three ways to test and see if a piece of legislation defies the clause:

The piece of legislation must have a secular purpose;
The piece of legislation must not advance or prohibit the practice of religion;
The piece of legislation must not force the government into “excessive entanglement” with religious affairs.

If a piece of legislation passes the Lemon Test, then it does not defy the Establishment Clause and can proceed to further scrutiny. That is, the legislation will be evaluated to see if aligns with the other amendments. With these three prongs noted, one can see how easily Lemon v. Kurtzman would have failed the Lemon Test.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) | Application of the Lemon Test

Wallace v. Jaffree, a case that took place in the state of Alabama, is another landmark Supreme Court case involving a dispute in legislation around religion. In 1981, Alabama decided to introduce legislation that mandated a 1-minute moment of silence at the start of class in all public schools. Although, ostensibly, the legislators claimed that this moment of silence could be used either for reflection or prayers, the legislation’s intent was to create an opportunity for students to pray before school started.

This decision naturally upset many non-religious parents, and multiple lawsuits soon followed, climbing their way up all the way to the Supreme Court. Throughout this process, the Alabama legislators argued that this bill does not defy the Establishment Clause, as the moment of silence can be used in any way that pleases the student— not necessarily just for prayer. However, the fault in this is that the introduction of the bill was done to allow students to pray, not to give them a moment of silence; thus, this bill failed the Lemon Test’s first prong as it did not have a secular purpose. In a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court held that the bill defies the Establishment Clause.

Oregon v. Smith (1990) | Introduction of RFRA

street signs saying church and state — (source: yahoo images)

This case, unlike the aforementioned ones, has a bit more nuance to it and led to a wide range of implications. This case is the primary reason Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which is one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation, having passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97-3.

In Oregon v. Smith, two people, who both worked at a drug rehabilitation center, were fired due to having consumed peyote, a hallucinogenic drug. The issue at hand, however, is that their consumption of peyote was done during a sacred religious practice. This case did not make it to the Supreme Court because the drug rehabilitation center fired them (as the center very much can fire whoever they please — they are a private entity); it made it to the Supreme Court because after they were fired, these two individuals sought unemployment benefits and were denied due to being fired for consuming drugs, which is considered “workplace misconduct.”

However, unlike the previous cases, the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the appellants. The Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that since the denial of unemployment benefits due to workplace misconduct is a rule of general application (meaning it does not specifically target any people or religious practice), it is constitutional.

However, as one might conclude, many did not like this outcome. Therefore, as aforementioned, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to clarify some of the issues raised by Oregon v. Smith. The first clause of RFRA states its purpose, saying that it aims to prohibit “any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

This first clause seeks to prohibit exactly what was the outcome in Oregon v. Smith, but it also comes with some limitations. That is, Congress is free to burden one’s exercise of religion if (1) doing so will further a compelling government interest; and, (2) doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. The introduction of this incredibly bipartisan bill, as we will shortly explore, has some interesting implications.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) | Application of RFRA

In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, we see the RFRA being put to use which leads to an interesting implication from the outcome of this case. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby sprouted from one of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), namely, that all nonexempt employers are legally required to offer their employees health coverage and benefits, including contraceptives, some of which stop an egg from fertilizing. Before progressing with the case, we ought to make note that some employers, primarily religious institutions such as churches, are exempt from the ACA.

Hobby Lobby, a crafts company, is a tightly-owned company, meaning that there are only a few number of people who own the company. All of these owners, moreover, do not want to comply with the ACA since they believe life begins at conception and to thereby provide their employees with free contraceptives would go against their religious beliefs. However, if a company does not comply with the ACA, it would have to pay a fee per employee. For Hobby Lobby, the total cost would amount to about $475 million per year.

Hobby Lobby was conflicted about whether they should go against their religious beliefs and supply their employees with contraceptives or instead pay $475 million a year and adhere to their religious stance. Due to this ethical dilemma, Hobby Lobby decided to sue the Department of Human Health Services (those who implemented the ADA), and the case made its way up to the Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby cited RFRA, stating that the ACA mandate does not comply with RFRA’s second clause. They argued that forcing Hobby Lobby to offer its employees contraceptives is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government decision. Rather, Hobby Lobby stated that they, like religious institutions, should be exempt from the ACA, as that is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest (health care for employees). The employees of companies who are exempt from the ACA have their health care paid for by taxes.

The Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby is correct—the least restrictive means indeed is making Hobby Lobby an exempt company, thereby allowing governmental taxes to pay for the health care of their employees.

What is remarkable about this case is its implication that the Supreme Court stated that the best course of action to resolve a religious dispute over health care is to simply allow the government to fund health care. One might argue, then, that the Supreme Court is hinting toward universal health care, as they view that as the least restrictive means.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) | Abandonment of the Lemon Test

The last case we shall discuss is one that has been all over the media recently: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. In this case, a high school football coach decided to kneel and pray before and after games. The school district feared that his actions would violate the Establishment Clause, so they asked him to stop. When he did not, they fired him.

Claiming his first amendment right to the freedom of religion was violated, he sued the school. The lawsuit eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court, and, by a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled in the coach’s favor, stating that he was not complicit in praying since he did it during post-game periods when people were free to do as they pleased.

However, something remarkable also happened in this case: the Supreme Court decided to stop using the Lemon Test, which has been in practice since 1971. Instead of the Lemon Test, the Court stated that they will decide disputes over the Establishment Clause by “accor[ding] with [what] histor[ically] and faithfully reflec[ts] the understanding of the Founding Fathers.”

What this means, we do not yet know, as this is yet another new change by the Supreme Court. Throughout history, the Lemon Test has proved itself to be a great way of settling legislative disputes, so one could only wonder why the Supreme Court decided against it.

Summary

US Capitol Building — (source: yahoo images)

As I showed with this blog post, cases revolving around religious freedom are by no means simple, but the courts, thankfully, have historically always ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause, never seeking to subdue religious freedom.

However, after the abandonment of the Lemon Test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, it is clear that the Supreme Court is planning on interpreting the Establishment Clause differently than they have had since 1971. What this means for upcoming cases, we have yet to find out. However, what we do know is that religious freedom, despite how tricky it might be at times, should remain a human right.

A Succinct Discussion on Global Poverty

Everyone has heard of global poverty and its horrendous consequences; however, for some people, that is where their knowledge ends. In this blog, I am going to undertake the task of succinctly compiling facts and statistics about this incredibly broad topic. My hope is that, after reading this blog, you are more inclined to speak out on global poverty and educate others on the topic.

A Rudimentary Understanding

a desert overview — (source: yahoo images)

Global poverty is an umbrella term for poverty that exists throughout the entire world. That was the easy part: defining global poverty. However, defining poverty is a tad bit more tricky. We can surely say that poverty is a status: the status given to those whose annual income falls under a bar; however, poverty is more than just low annual income.

The United Nations, in particular, has defined poverty as, “a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means a lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness, and exclusion of individuals, households, and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.”

In addition, when discussing poverty, there is a distinction between relative deprivation and absolute deprivation. Relative deprivation is a function of inequality and can be defined as “the lack of resources (e.g. money, rights, social equality) necessary to maintain the quality of life considered typical within a given socioeconomic group.”

Absolute deprivation, on the other hand, is when one’s income falls below a level where they are unable to maintain food and shelter. Studies have shown that relative deprivation, or the inability to live up to the basic standards of living set forth within a particular community of reference, can be just as harmful to health outcomes as absolute deprivation. For example, research suggests that diabetes – a disease associated with modernization – is not a function of poverty, as the poorest countries show the lowest incidence among the global population. It is in nations that exhibit increasing political-economic and social inequality, including the United States, that diabetes has emerged as a leading cause of death and a serious public health threat.

Therefore, it should go without saying that our goal should be to diminish all forms of deprivation globally.

Statistics and Facts

a desert view of a tree — (source: yahoo images)

Personally, what I find most disturbing about global poverty is its breadth. Grounding this point is the fact that, according to the World Bank and WorldVision, “About 9.2% of the world, or 689 million people, live in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 a day.”

Practically one in ten people within the world are living in poverty.

To better understand the magnitude of this issue, imagine the following scenario: you live in this fantasy world where, in an effort to promote international toleration and cooperation, 30 children from all around the world get arbitrarily placed together into a classroom. Out of those 30 children, three of them would be living on less than $2 a day. If you are reading this blog, then you naturally have access to some sort of electric device. Those three children, in a year, will not have accumulated enough money to purchase your device.

A logical question that might follow from the preceding scenario is that it is wrong of me to solely include children in made-up scenarios because adults, after all, also live in poverty. While that is undeniably true, they by no means make up the majority. Over two-thirds of those living in poverty are children. Of those children, women represent the majority.

Let us quickly look at local poverty—specifically, poverty within the United States. In the United States, as of 2019, around 10.5% of people live in poverty. The poverty line in the United States is around $13,000, and thus, each person living in poverty makes around $35 a day. Let us make note that these statistics are from 2019, meaning they are pre-pandemic. In 2020, the percentage of people living in poverty went up by one point to 11.4%. Ostensibly, that raise seems miniscule; however, it accounts for 3 million new Americans who entered poverty, also now making less than $35 a day.

All poverty is bad: that is undisputed. However, one who lives in America might confuse American poverty with global poverty as it might be what they encounter daily. This presents a problem because this cannot be done as they are by no means the same. Those in poverty in America statistically make ten times more a day than those living in poverty abroad. That is a big difference; we can not equate the two.

Education

a view of UNESCO — (source: yahoo images)

Education is a human right; that is undeniable. Every human who walks this Earth has the right to get an education and develop individually. However, living in poverty makes education incredibly difficult.

One study has found that, of those who live in poverty and are over the age of 15, 70% have only a basic education with no formal schooling. That means that if you are born into poverty and have no way of elevating out of this status, then, statistically, you are unlikely to get an education. This is an immense issue due to the fact that, according to UNESCO, education is the key to climbing out of poverty. In fact, UNESCO stated that, “if all students in low-income countries had just basic reading skills (nothing else), an estimated 171 million people could escape extreme poverty. If all adults completed secondary education, we could cut the global poverty rate by more than half.”

The dilemma is that the path out of poverty is through education; however, living in poverty makes education harder to achieve.

However, in the past years, steps have been made in the correct direction, and education rates have indeed increased. A rise in education is beneficial to not just those living in poverty, but the nations they live in as well. In fact, a study published by Stanford University and Munich’s Ludwig Maximilian University shows that, between 1975 and 2000, 75% of the increase in a nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) can be attributed to the increase of math and science skills amongst the population.

Therefore, education not only improves the lives of those in poverty, but also the well-being and economy of the nation and its people. It is for those reasons, amongst many more, that education is, and should forever remain, a human right.

Impacts

a picture of trees — (source: yahoo images)

In addition to the lack of education, those living in poverty face a multitude of other negatives. For one, a study found that adults living in poverty are at a “higher risk of adverse health effects from obesity, smoking, substance use, and chronic stress. [IN ADDITION], older adults with lower incomes experience higher rates of disability and mortality.”

In addition, this same study found that those living in the top 1% generally have a life expectancy 10 years greater than those living in poverty. Moreover, one study found that, for children and adolescents, poverty can also cause differences in structural and functional brain development, which impacts “cognitive processes that are critical for learning, communication, and academic achievement, including social emotional processing, memory, language, and executive functioning.”

Therefore, with the aforementioned facts in mind, it is easily concluded that poverty is an immense issue, and political leaders should be doing more to help relieve the issue.

So, naturally, one might ask: why is nothing being done? One response to this question comes from the World Systems Theory. This theory is complex, so I will try my best to briefly discuss it. The theory states that all nations are divided into three systems: the core, the periphery, and the semi-periphery. Essentially, the theory states that the core nations, which are the most politically and economically powerful, use the periphery and semi-periphery nations, which are filled with developing nations, for cheap labor and resources. The core rewards the periphery for their resources and labor, but not enough that the nations develop at such a pace that they become equal to the core nations. This in turn causes a dilemma in which the periphery depend more on the core than vice versa. Some might argue that this in turn perpetuates global poverty as the core nations are doing the least to help developing nations. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, thus exacerbating both absolute and relative forms of deprivation and sustaining the cycle of poverty.

Moving Forward

a view of the road — (source: yahoo images)

As mentioned previously, global poverty has indeed been decreasing. According to WorldVision, “Since 1990, more than 1.2 billion people have risen out of extreme poverty. Now, 9.2% of the world survives on less than $1.90 a day, compared to nearly 36% in 1990.”

We are still heading down this path of poverty reduction, and it is vital that we continue to do so. Perhaps, one day, we will live in a world free of poverty—a world in which every single person is educated, well-nourished, and does not have to fear starvation. It is my hope that after you finish reading this blog, you will share any knowledge and statistics you may have learned with others. The first step in resolving an issue–and continuing to resolve it—is acknowledgement. If more people are aware of how detrimental poverty is, more people will in turn be inclined to help fix it. We need more support and commitment to a world in which poverty is mere history.

Environmental Successes Throughout the Years

Typically, when you hear “human rights” in a sentence, it is either preceded or followed by words with negative connotations — crises, violations, atrocities, etc. However, this blog will aim to highlight positives and focus on the environment.

After reading many articles about environmental issues, some people might be unaware that we have made environmental progress throughout the year. As the Earth is home to all humans, any sort of environmental success, no matter how small, benefits the human species as a whole.

The Ozone

a picture of earth from space — (source: yahoo images)

Perhaps one of the most remarkable environmental victories was the recovery of the Ozone layer. The Ozone layer is located in Earth’s atmosphere and is responsible for blocking excess ultraviolet light from reaching life on Earth. Without the Ozone, the ultraviolet radiation would harm all life on earth, including plants.

In 1985, scientists discovered what seemed to be a hole forming in the Ozone. If the formation of this hole had not been stopped, the Ozone could have depleted significantly enough to allow ultraviolet radiation to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere and reach life on Earth.

The Ozone layer was depleting due to human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, which are found in refrigerators, air sprays, and other common items which humans use.

While chlorofluorocarbons pose a menacing threat to the environment, thankfully in 1987, almost 200 nations signed the Montreal Protocol, which prohibited the use and production of items containing chlorofluorocarbons.

This act of international cooperation proved to be beneficial, as the Ozone recovered significantly in the coming years. In fact, the United Nations (UN) predicts that by 2035, the Ozone will be fully replenished in the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere.

This is why swift actions of nations are vital to correct threats to the environment. This collaborative effort by the nations to join forces to solve this issue with the Ozone makes it one of the most remarkable environmental successes of all times?

The Rise of Environmentally-Friendly Fuel

a picture of a chevron gas station — (source: yahoo images)

Another environmental success was one that originated in the United States in the 1970s. The United States (US) decided to federally ban the use of a certain type of lead in gasoline which had potent toxins encoded within it.

After the US ban, Canada and some European nations followed suit. Again, due to this combined effort, lead levels dropped from the air, which resulted in a decrease in respiratory diseases invoked by lead..Additionally, evidence of lead levels decreased in human blood, allowing gasoline users (which was anyone who drove a car or made contact with gasoline) to live healthier lives.

Needless to say, the international effort to stop using lead gasoline was a great environmental success for lead gasoline, according to what the World Health Organizations once deemed was “the mistake of the 20th century.”

Renewable Energy

a picture of windmills — (source: yahoo images)

While gas that does not contain toxic lead surely is a success; not using gas at all is even a greater success. Gas and fossil fuels will inherently create pollution, which will eventually harm the environment, regardless of how eco-friendly the gas/fossil fuel happens to be.

However, recently, there has been more of a push than ever for renewable energy rather than rely on fossil fuels for energy. Many nations have started utilizing solar and wind power, both which do not harm the environment.

This push for renewable energy has allowed it to become more accessible and the prices low. In fact, since 2010, the cost of installing solar power has decreased by 85% and the cost of wind power has fallen by 50% so renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels. This is a major accomplishment for all of humankind. We have reached a point where fossil fuels, which are harmful to the environment,are rarely used in comparison to renewable energy. Years ago, many would have viewed this change as an impossible feat. However, an impossible feat it is not, it is another environmental victory.

The Bottom Line

trees in sweden — (source: yahoo images)

While this blog only lists a couple environmental successes, they are by no means the only ones. Throughout the years, there have been hundreds of success stories that have helped keep our environment healthy and prosperous.

However, even with these successes in mind, environmental problems are still incredibly prevalent. Global warming, despite all of the successes mentioned, still prevails.

These environmental problems are dire, and they need to be solved as soon as possible. Thankfully, as we have seen happen throughout the years, environmental problems can be solved.

It is for those reasons that it is important to make note of environmental successes. It is not simply just for peace of mind—it is so that we are all well aware that we have been able to solve problems in the past, so this should inspire us to continue tosolve problems in the future.

As our Earth grows older, it is plausible that it might face more dangers and we are capable of overcoming environmental threats. While the Earth indeed grows older, so do we. As our technology advances, we should be confident that we are equipped to handle the environmental challenges that come our way.

China’s Zero-COVID Policy

Since the pandemic began, you might have seen multiple different snippets of Chinese citizens in their homes under complete lockdown. You might have even seen drones patrolling the streets and citizens shouting lamentations out of their window.

What you may not have known is that all of these scenarios mentioned above are a direct result of China’s COVID protocols. Currently, China is imposing a “zero-COVID” policy on all of its citizens. However, as President Xi Jinping was just re-elected for a third five-year term, we can assume that the policy will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

The “zero-COVID” Policy: Prevention

Let us now evaluate what this so-called “zero-COVID” policy is and what it entails. Supposedly, China “recognizes domestic outbreaks are inevitable, and its policies are not geared towards having zero cases at all times but instead, are about “dynamically” taking actions when cases surface.”

China’s policy can be split into two distinct features: prevention and containment. In the case of prevention, China ensures PCR tests (which are fast and highly accurate ways to diagnose COVID) are readily available for anyone at any given time. The normality and presence of tests has in turn caused certain businesses and buildings to require individuals to show proof of being COVID negative to enter these public spaces. However inconvenient this might be to those who are not tested, this notion has definitely kept cases low—after all, if functioning in life requires having a negative test, why would one risk getting sick? One surely would not want to risk getting sick since it would mean they would be practically unable to enter any public places. Hence, prevention of COVID prevails in China.

The “zero-COVID” Policy: Containment

Chinese mountain — (source: yahoo images)

Prevention of COVID seems to be rather successful in China. However, the other part of China’s zero-COVID policy seems to be the one that sparks controversy and frequently makes its way into mainstream media: containment.

Allegedly, China’s “[control tactics] aimed at swiftly cutting off transmission chains to forestall outbreaks, involve quarantining cases at government-supervised facilities and locking down buildings, communities or even entire cities.”

Picture this: you wake up, get dressed, and are having your typical morning routine. Perhaps you might be feasting on some waffles or eggs as you prepare for your day. In any case, you eat your breakfast, and then head out to work. You get to your office around 10 minutes early, anticipating it will be a good day.

About halfway through your work day, you receive word that you will not be heading home to your family that night. Someone in that building (a coworker of yours), tested positive for COVID, and the city decided to place your entire office building on lockdown.

Swiftly, within hours, government officials are shoving mattress and bed materials through the window. Additionally, food supplies are en route to the office. The basic necessities of human survival are all now being prepared to be delivered to your office, which, for the next couple of days, will be your home.

This scenario is one that many people living in China have experienced. Starting your day normally to simply head to work and be told that you would not be allowed to go back home for a couple of days is a harsh reality in China.

This ability for the government to impose this upon its citizens is all, as one would expect, due to China’s commitment to its zero-COVID policy.

However, in addition to putting entire office buildings under lockdown for days, China is also able to put entire cities on lockdown. The population of the cities which fall victim to China’s harsh quarantine policies matters not—Shanghai, China’s largest city, was even placed on lockdown. Other cities that have been placed on lockdown include Xian, Chengdu, Tianjin, Shenzhen, and regions such as Xinjiang, Tibet and Jilin.

When a city is placed on lockdown, its citizens typically get little notice. The lockdowns, unsurprisingly, are complete lockdowns—there are no exceptions. Everything closes. Everyone is required to stay inside, no matter what. China ensures complete and total lockdown.

The government guards and watches over the streets 24/7 and ensures that no one roams the streets without permission. On top of that, drones often fly about, blaring messages out loud to remind everyone of the lockdown procedures.

When China decides to place a city under lockdown, eeriness overflows the streets. The scene is reminiscent of ghost towns and movies of towns left abandoned due to some unforeseeable incident.

The Impacts and Implications

These efforts on China’s end, despite how draconian they might appear, have definitely accomplished China’s goals. Globally, China is practically one of the least impacted nations by COVID—despite the fact the virus allegedly originated from China in the first place.

According to OurWorldInData, China’s all-time COVID case count is about 1 million. The United States’s total is about 97 million. Additionally, in China, only about 5,000 have died from complications with COVID, while over a million people have died in the United States.

Naturally, this presents an ethical dilemma—how should a government go about protecting the lives of its citizens from an illness? Should the government take China’s route of practically removing one’s agency over their own life in order to keep cases and deaths down, or should a government take the route of the USA where COVID mandates are less harsh or non-existent?

The low incidence of COVID outbreaks might make it seem as if China is doing the correct thing—governments should step in and enforce lockdowns onto people. However, while this surely will indeed keep cases at a low count, it will also imply other things—most importantly, the implication that the government ultimately knows what is best for its people and has the final say in how people live their lives. If a government can step in randomly and deny its citizens the free will to leave an office building, what else can it do in other situations? This notion of a government exuding agency over its people in times when it deems best surely is not a notion that is only demonstrated in situations of COVID—it is a notion that is bound to resurface in other parts of one’s life.

What the correct and best thing for a government to do, as it relates to infection control, is not as clear cut as one might think. It is certainly problematic for a government to have total authority over its people (which thereby would give it the power to strictly enforce COVID policies). At the same time, this has been an effective strategy in keeping cases low. On the other hand, the United States has been uncertain as to how to implement COVID policies. The USA is not used to enforcing policies in situations that have never occurred before, such as the COVID pandemic. Hopefully, if there is one positive thing we could gain from the entire pandemic, it is that if a pandemic were to ever break out again, due to COVID, we are better equipped to deal with it.

Relativism’s Implications on Universal Human Rights

If you consider yourself to be a supporter of human rights and all of its technicalities, then you are surely aware of the document that formally brought forth legislation about human rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Declaration was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations by a vote of 48-0-8 on December 10, 1948.

Per its name, the main goal of the Declaration was to universalize human rights and to ensure that every human, no matter where in the world, has the same basic human rights.

This inherent goal of the Declaration (its aim of universal human rights), has been a source of debate in the philosophical realm for quite some time. This blog will bring forth one particular view relating to the debate, as well as its implications.

Relativism

In the realm of philosophy, there exists a concept of relativism. (Or, more specifically, cultural relativism; in this blog, I shall be using these terms synonymously.)

Rather than plainly stating what relativism is, I am going to show you one of the many ways the concept was devised.

The Earth is big. On our big Earth, there are seven continents. Throughout these seven continents, there are hundreds of states and nations. In these states and nations, billions of people exist. Most of the people within these nations align with a specific cultural identity. Whether it be American, French, Japanese, or Swiss, all humans have a unique cultural identity.

Moreover, cultures have different forms of expressions. One culture is not necessarily like another (for what is right in one culture could very much be wrong in another).

Therefore, there is no possible way that an objective set of rules could ever exist. What is correct is relative to the culture and society of where that expression is happening.

If you followed along and agreed with all of the statements just made, then you are stepping into the realm of relativism.

More on Relativism

Relativism is the view that what is “right” and “wrong” is solely dependent on one’s culture. What is correct in the United States could very much be wrong in another nation.

A finite example of this is gratuity, or “tipping,” after a meal in a restaurant. In the United States, it is acceptable to tip your server after a meal at a restaurant. In Japan, this would be disrespectful.

In the eyes of relativism, both of these customs are correct. Moreover, they are equally correct—one is not more “right” than the other.

Additionally, cultural relativism not only says that cultural customs are equally correct but the moral codes of every culture is equally correct also. In other words, no culture is better than another—no culture is more correct.

However, this characteristic of cultural relativism brings forth another one of its characteristics: there is no such thing as moral progress.

To say that something has “progressed” is to say that it has become better, meaning that before its progression, it was flawed. This goes against cultural relativism because relativism states that every culture is inherently correct—there is no need to progress. Therefore, rather than saying a culture has “progressed,” relativists say that a culture has simply changed its ways and its moral code. (This is different from progression because it does not imply a culture has advanced for the better due to some arbitrary standard.)

Cultural relativism, at least at first, might be an appealing outlook on life. After all, who are we to tell different cultures what is right and what is wrong? Every culture and society should be allowed to have their own rules and social norms. It sounds immoral to enforce the United State’s social norms onto other nations.

Relativism’s Implications on Human Rights

The big implication that follows from relativism (as it relates to human rights) can be broken down as follows: (i) if cultural relativism is correct, every culture is equal and correct; (ii) if every culture is equal and correct, no culture has authority or agency over another; (iii) enforcing universal human rights would not align with all cultures in the world; (iv) if no culture/society has the agency to tell another what to do, and enforcing universal human rights would require telling other cultures what to do, universal human rights cannot exist.

Despite this argument coming to the conclusion that universal human rights cannot exist, we all are very much aware of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—something that does indeed exist. However, we must note that the argument above does not apply to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is due to the fact that the Declaration holds no legal obligation as it is solely a declaration, not a treaty. Nations are not forced to follow it. Instead, they are encouraged to follow it. (However, this is not to say that the Declaration is not followed.)

Therefore, the argument that universal human rights cannot exist still stands. However, the argument’s basis is founded on the premise that relativism is true and correct—and that might not be the case.

Universalism

Before we carry on with our discussion of relativism, I would like to point out another view: universalism. As it relates to politics, universalism, unlike relativism, states that universal human rights can and should exist.

Universalism is the direct opposite to relativism in the world of politics. It claims that social norms across all cultures are fundamentally similar, hence why it would be possible to universalize (and legislate) human rights.

Objections to Relativism

Having now formulated a basic understanding of relativism (as well as its counter: universalism), we can now move on ahead and consider some of the theory’s big objections.

First, let us consider the objection of “no cultural progress”. The lack of cultural progress in relativism, as aforementioned, is formulated from the basis that all cultures are equally correct, with no culture being “better” or “worse.” Due to this, no culture can progress as it would imply it was not “good” in the past. Rather than progressing, a culture merely changed its practices and moral codes.

Therefore, under relativism, one would not be able to say that modern-day Germany is better than Nazi Germany, even though we know it is. Relativism would suggest that moral code of Nazi Germany is just as correct as the moral code of modern Germany; one is not better than the other.

Moreover, under relativism, one could not say that the abolishment of slavery was progress for the United States; we merely changed our ways.

This, as one would obviously assume, is a big pill to swallow. Most would agree that modern-day Germany and the modern-day USA are better than they were many years ago. However, to say this would be to reject relativism, thereby stating that some cultures and social norms indeed are better than others.

Another objection to relativism comes from the fact that most people align with multiple different cultures. For example, everyone in the United States lives under the cultural code of the United States. However, we also follow cultural norms that are more local—such as the cultural codes of what city/state we live in. In cases like these, relativism gives no true guidelines on what one should do.

A famous example of this objection comes from the case Wisconsin vs. Yoder. This case was between the state of Wisconsin and an Amish family that lived in Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, legislation requires that every family sends their children to get educated until the age of 16. However, Amish customs say that no child needs education after 8th grade. Thus, a dilemma formulated between one culture and another—the culture of Wisconsin and the culture of the Amish.

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of the Amish family, citing the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

This however, is just one example of conflicting cultural social norms. What is one supposed to do when their culture does not align with another culture they are a part of? Relativism does not say.

Besides the two mentioned objections to relativism, many more exist. Therefore, it is quite clear that relativism is not a perfect theory nor a perfect view of life. However, despite the objections to the view, many have still aligned with the theory.

Conclusion

As there are many attractions and objections to relativism, one is, perhaps, able to see why the concept of universal human rights has been a heated source of debate.

Whether or not there will ever be a treaty formulated that legally binds nations into following basic human rights is unknown. However, what we do know is that this issue is not one that is as obvious as people might believe at first.

Perhaps, in the future, if there is diplomatic debate on this topic, a treaty could very well be created. This treaty will ensure that no human ever on this planet gets mistreated. However, until that day, we solely have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a very good starting point for a treaty on human rights.

On the Railroad Workers’ Situation

Perhaps, in the media or within your own life, you have heard snippets about “railroad workers rights” and “railroad unions.” However, even though you might have heard of these topics, you still may not know what they refer to. You might have even asked yourself, “Why would railroad workers form unions? What is going on?” To understand the answers to these questions, consider the severity of the situation. For example, did you know that railroad workers across the United States are facing disciplinary action for taking days off to go to the doctor?

I hope this post implores you to spread information about the maltreatment that the railroad workers are experiencing. This blog will share the most current information relating to railroad workers rights movement.

But First

Before we unpack all that has been going on with railroad workers, we will firstly examine a place that is frequently of American interest: Italy. Whether it be Italy’s beautiful geography, remarkable monuments, or the sublime cuisine, most Americans have similar presumptions about the nation: it is simply exquisite and fosters a rich culture.

Unfortunately, however, this blog will not discuss Italy’s glorious disposition. Instead, we will be discussing another remarkable, modern-day characteristic of Italy (which, in my opinion, trumps some of the others): the rights of employees instituted by the federal government.

In Italy, every employee is entitled to at least four weeks of paid vacation. The federal government makes it illegal for any employer to prohibit their employees to not take at least four weeks of time off.

Contrastingly, this notion, as it relates to the United States (where there is no federal law regulating how many days off a private employer is required to give their employee) is borderline martian. Employees being federally entitled to paid time off in the United States is similar to oxygen in space—nonexistent.

However, even though Italian employers are required to offer at least four weeks of paid vacation to their employees, the majority of employers offer five weeks. In the United States, the average length of paid time off given to employees is 10-14 days—less than two weeks.

Without a doubt, when comparing which nation better allows its employees to have a healthy work-life balance, Italy prevails over the United States. (I did not even have to mention how Italians also receive 104 hours per year which they can use for personal affairs: taking a child to the doctor, running errands, etc.).

However, let us now consider the argument that follows from the aforementioned points: indeed, Italy may have better federal legislation for employees; but, surely, as a result of that, their economy and government is not as prosperous as the United States.

This argument, although perhaps not for the reasons one might assume, is valid—the United States indeed does have a bigger and better economy than Italy. In regards to GDP, the US economy ranks first in the world, while Italy’s is 8th. However, one must also consider the USA’s size and history. Italy’s economy crumbled after the World War; the US’ economy exponentiated. Therefore, considering that Italy had to recover from a World War, the fact that it currently ranks 8th in the world—and it has legislation ensuring the prosperity of employees—is rather remarkable.

As you read the rest of this article, keep these statistics and distinctions in mind.

Back to the States

american flag — The White House (source: yahoo images)

Up until this point, we have discussed international affairs. However, the main point this blog seeks to discuss and analyze relates to railroad workers in the USA—a domestic topic. Italy’s overpowering legislation on employee’s rights shall be used as a tool of comparison for what is currently occurring in the United States.

With all this in mind, the ultimate question remains: what is going on with railroad workers in the United States?

The Fundamentals

steam train — A steam engine (source: yahoo images)

For the past couple of months, multiple unions have been created by railroad workers to bring forth change in the workplace. These unions have threatened to go on strike multiple times.

The central issue that unions are attempting to fix relates to worker rights. More specifically, the rights of employees wishing to take days off.

For the railroad workers, the ability to have sick days has been a source of conflict. Currently, railroad workers throughout the United States are not able to take days off for any reason. Whether it be taking off days because of sudden illness or having to go to a funeral, railroad workers are unable to take off days without facing repercussions (which include suspension and potential dismissal).

According to Vice, railroad workers are “working or on call 90% of the time.” When workers are on call, it’s rather common for them to be called into work at random times and end up being away for multiple days. When workers are not on call, they are often already at work.

This has caused outrage within the railroad workers community. These workers, who are vital to America’s economy, are not being offered basic worker protections.

In fact, a spouse of a railroad worker once stated that “[they] go to work sick, they miss funerals of loved ones, they miss final goodbyes to parents on hospice, they miss holidays, birthdays, all of it.”

Moreover, some railroad companies, in an effort to have a “system” overseeing the amount of days off an employee receives, created a point system. In this system, employees gain points for showing up as scheduled and lose points when they do not show up as scheduled. Ostensibly, this makes sense: workers should both be praised for their hard work and penalized if they simply disregard their schedule. However, unfortunately, this system is far from that.

In this system, every employee starts with 30 points. If an employee wants to take a day off, they lose 15 points. Whether it be Christmas, New Years Day, or Thanksgiving, any day off by an employee leads to a deduction of 15 points.

Therefore, if an employee wishes to take a day off on Christmas and Thanksgiving, they would lose all of their points. This in turn would get them suspended and put under investigation. If they are found to be compliant workers, they are put back to work and given 15 points. If they end up losing those 15 points, they are fired. (I should also note that, in this particular point system, the only way an employee can gain points is by being on call for 14 days in a row.

Therefore, the points system forced upon the railroad workers does not penalize them for disregarding their schedules, it penalizes them for not making “work-life” simply “work.”

The Strike

As one would expect, this blatant disregard of equitable worker considerations has forced railroad workers to rally together and create various unions. These unions, as was previously mentioned, have been threatening to go on strike until changes are brought forth.

Currently, negotiations are still ongoing. Thankfully, however, the threat of striking seems to be working in favor of the railroad unions. One of the tentative agreements reached between the union and workers, according to Slate, is that “[railroad workers would have] voluntary assigned days off, granting one additional paid day off, allowing workers to attend medical appointments without penalty, and creating exemptions from attendance policies for hospitalizations and surgeries.”

Seeing that these workers are now being allowed to go to the doctor’s office without facing the threat of penalization, this is a definite step in the right direction.

The Future

What the future entails, we know not. However, what we currently do know is that this issue would break just about every other federal law regarding workers’ rights in Italy. While here, in the United States, railroad workers are battling to merely receive days to go to the doctor’s office because of sudden illness, Italians enjoy the privilege of federally mandated vacation days.

Perhaps, as it relates to this manner, the United States could learn from Italy. A federal mandate over workers’ rights in the United States would benefit the entire nation. This mandate would make it federally illegal for employers to overwork their employees and penalize them if they simply wish to go to a funeral. In order to bring this change into effect, everyone needs to be aware of this issue. To most, the rights—or lack thereof—of railroad workers is rather shocking. If this issue were brought to the forefront of the media, more would become aware of it, and more would be willing to advocate and bring change. This is not a local issue, this is a national one and we, as a nation, need to be aware of it.

With acknowledgement of the maltreatment of employees across the nation, as well as advocacy for reforms on federal legislation about employee rights, the United States could become more like Italy and ensure all employees get fair treatment. With acknowledgement and advocacy for change, ensuring that every worker gets basic necessities might not be too far away.

Yeshiva University vs. Pride Alliance Group

Yeshiva University Wilf Campus — Yeshiva University’s Wilf Campus (source: yahoo images)

On Friday, September 16th, 2022, in response to a court’s ruling that the university cannot block the formation of a LGBTQIA+ group, New York’s Yeshiva University decided to temporarily suspend all undergraduate student activities and clubs. Yeshiva claims that permitting the formation of a LGBTQ+ student organization would be “inconsistent with the school’s Torah values and the religious environment it seeks to maintain.”

How It Started

Pride Parade NYC 2011 — 2011 Pride Parade in NYC (source: yahoo images)

The LGBTQ+ group in question is Yeshiva’s Pride Alliance, which was unofficially created in 2018. They were unofficial in the sense that their support was low and their group size was small— as all student groups are in the beginning. The student group describes itself as a supportive space for all students, regardless of sexual orientation and gender, with the goal of allowing all members to feel secure, respected, and represented at Yeshiva.

It is understandable that one of the group’s goals was representation. In the modern day, it is extremely unlikely to find any major university without an instituted pride alliance group. Therefore, Yeshiva’s Pride Alliance group wanting that same, basic characteristic—of representation—should not come as a surprise.

However, when they approached the university last year to ask if they could get officially recognized as a student group, they were instantly denied. In response, however, they remained determined, and proceeded to sue the school for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Legal Claims

NYC CIty Court — New York City Court (source: yahoo images)

The Pride Alliance group sued Yeshiva for breaking the New York City Human Rights Law, a law code prohibiting discrimination on a basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, and other classifications.

In response to the lawsuit, Yeshiva University, which identifies itself as an Orthodox Jewish university, claimed that they could not recognize the group because it “conflicted with the school’s interpretation of the Torah.”

The lawsuit first went to a court in New York, where it was concluded that the university must officially recognize the group. The court argued that Yeshiva was not a religious institution (which would thereby make it immune to New York City’s Human Rights Law), but an educational institution.

Yeshiva disagreed and appealed to the Supreme Court. At first, the Supreme Court told Yeshiva to ignore the prior ruling, and that the Justices will be the ones to declare what rights LGBTQ+ groups have in universities.

However, that standing changed rather quickly. Just earlier this week, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court told Yeshiva that they should follow the prior court’s ruling because they have not exhausted all their options before appealing to the Supreme Court. In other words, the Supreme Court voted to send Yeshiva’s appeal back to local courts; they did not rule that Yeshiva acted unconstitutionally.

Yeshiva’s Next Step

Empty Campus — An empty campus (source: yahoo images)

After Yeshiva was notified that they should follow the prior ruling (meaning that they must officially recognize an LGBTQ+ student group), they concluded that their only option was to shut down all undergraduate activities and clubs.

Enforcing such drastic measures upon the entire undergraduate population, as one might assume, was an unprecedented move on Yeshiva’s end. Many might infer that this action could have been done in an attempt to mask discrimination. Is it truly discriminatory to not recognize a pride alliance group when also not recognizing any other groups at all? Most would say it is not. That, from what we can assume, is what Yeshiva wants until the legal proceedings sort out: put forth a blanket disapproval of all student groups so they cannot be faulted for targeting an LGBTQ+ one.

Yeshiva’s measures have caused many to view the university as homophobic; however, the president of the university, Rabbi Ari Berman, was quick to demobilize those allegations, stating that “[Yeshiva University’s] commitment and love for our LGBTQ students are unshakeable.”

However unshakable Yeshiva’s love for LGBTQ+ students might be, we have yet to see. We must not overlook what we have seen—it merely took a pride alliance group to ask for recognition to rid the entire university of all its undergraduate activities and clubs.

What’s to Come

As Yeshiva returns back to local courts we are unsure of what will happen in the future—except that it will not be filled with any undergraduate activities. If Yeshiva’s appeal succeeds and the city’s ruling is overturned, then the LGBTQ+ group will not be able to get recognized by the school. If the ruling does not get overturned, Yeshiva could appeal their way back up to the Supreme Court.

However, even if this were to happen, precedence seems to be against the LGBTQ+ group. In prior cases, the Supreme Court has sided consistently with religious universities when discussing issues of religious freedoms (i.e. what a religious university can and cannot do).

Moreover, one of the dissenting members of the initial Supreme Court vote, Samuel Alito, stated, “[Does the First Amendment] permit a State to force a Jewish school to instruct its students in accordance with an interpretation of Torah that the school, after careful study, has concluded is incorrect? The answer to that question is surely ‘no.’”

In other words, Justice Alito is stating that in his opinion, states should not have the authority to tell religious schools what to do if it does not align with their religious understandings.

With all of this in mind, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that the future of Yeshiva University’s Pride Alliance group is dependent on whether or not the initial city court was correct in deeming Yeshiva a state institution and not a religious one.

If the city court was incorrect, Yeshiva could inherit the authority to deny recognition to a group seeking representation—even though, allegedly, their commitment and support for LGBTQ+ persons is “unshakable.” If the city court was correct, representation and recognition of those underrepresented shall prevail.

LGBTQ+ Rights

pride flags — Pride flags (source: yahoo images)

The events that unfolded between Yeshiva and its pride alliance group returned a variety of different topics to the forefront of the media. One of which, in particular, is the topic of LGBTQ+ persons and the rights they have.

Discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons has been an ongoing issue for hundreds of years. For years, The United Nations has repeatedly stated that “discrimination against LGBTI people undermines the human rights principles outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet discrimination and violence against people in the LGBTI community are all too common. Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic attitudes remain deeply embedded in many cultures around the world.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published in 1948. 74 years ago. Not only does discrimination still exist, but same-sex marriage, in 2022, is only legal in 24 countries.

With Yeshiva University’s recent decision, we are seeing the global issue of same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights back in mainstream media. Equality and respect for all people should be the standard that we live by.

Despite all that has occurred, Yeshiva could bring forth new lessons for us all. Maybe, (or perhaps hopefully), one of those lessons could be that we, as a society, should strive to make discrimination of all people a thing of the past—make it history, so we can learn from it.