International – Page 14 – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

The Matter of Belonging

a picture of the Grand Canyon. It is a UNESCO site — Grand Canyon. Source: Alan Eng, Creative Commons

The United States formally withdrew from UNESCO last Thursday, followed shortly by Israel. The decision, called “a brave and moral decision” by Binyamin Netanyahu, hinders on what the Trump administration labels “anti-Israel bias”, a claim that seemingly stems from the recent designation of Hebron as a World Heritage Site. This is not the first time the US has withdrawn support from the organization. During the Reagan administration, the withdrawal occurred over “mismanagement and political implications”; the US rejoined in 2003 under Bush, but commenced withdrawing financial dues under Obama in 2011 when the organization included Palestine as a member. The Israel and US alliance began during the Truman presidency, around 1948. The purpose of this blog is not to delve into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict debate but to elucidate the power of collaborative relationship as an aspect of peace at the global level.

The purpose of UNESCO is to contribute to international peace and security through the cross-cultural collaboration of education, science, and culture, in accordance with the UN Chapter. The Constitution was signed into agreement in 1945, and came into force after twenty countries ratified it in 1946. UNESCO’s mandate lies in the removal of ignorance, mistrust, and suspicion from the minds of humanity, given that “wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” War, they assert, is propagated through ignorance, prejudice, and inequality; thus, denying democratic principles including “dignity, equality, and mutual respect” to all. Peace requires solidarity of humanity, both intellectually and morally.

Lines Drawn The ‘creation’ of the Green Line resulted in the 1949 Armistice and the lines of demarcation for Israel and her neighbors, specifically Jordan, and the designation of the West Bank. Following the Six Day War in 1967, Israel “annexed the eastern part of the city and its holy sites”; annexation did not include parts of Jerusalem, Bethlehem (the birthplace of Jesus), or Hebron (the burial place of the patriarchs and matriarchs of Judeo-Christian faith). Citizens of Israel and Palestine live on both sides of the Green Line. Palestine remains stateless, considering the requirements of Treaty of Westphalia, yet in 2011, the UN agency granted membership to the Palestinian Authority despite the full international recognition as a nation-state. Obama, in a May 2011 address, concluded a two state solution based upon the 1967 lines, presented the most viable option for peace in the region:

“What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace… We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

Given that Obama’s speech took place in May and the withdrawal funds from UNESCO in November, it appears all signs point to a divided Obama administration. However, the legislation to withdraw American funds from any UN agency, admitting Palestine as a full member, has origins in the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton presidencies.

a picture of the Sydney Opera House. It is a UNESCO site — Sydney Opera House. Source: Steve Collis, Creative Commons

A physical symbol of the UNESCO mandate materializes in the classification of world cultural/heritage sites. The designation of cultural sites in Israel began in 2001 and Palestine in 2012. In 2016, two Jewish sites in Jerusalem, geographically located in the West Bank, proved contentious for Israel and UNESCO. As a diplomatic entity, UNESCO introduced and regarded the sites by exclusive Arabic names, drawing the ire of Israel, who ascertained the move as “attempts to deny our heritage, distort history, and disconnect Jewish people from our capital and homeland”. According to the UNESCO World Heritage Sites list, neither of the Temple Mount locations are on the established or tentative list. Thereby positing the question aimed at the accusation of bias – where is the evidence of bias when it comes to UNESCO and the establishment of heritage sites?

“Anti-Israel bias” Netanyahu, during his 2011 speech to the US joint Congress, declared Israel and the US “stand together to defend democracy… to advance peace…and to fight terrorism”. He continued with an acknowledgement of the right to protest, the demand for dignity, and the desire for liberty. If coupling this speech with the decision to withdraw, the US-Israel alliance takes on an ‘us vs them’ mentality when considering the collaborative nature of the UN family of agencies. Therefore, what is the value of peace, liberty, and justice for all when two nations position themselves against the rest of the world?

It is a matter of social control versus social solidarity, or a matter of isolation versus belonging. Irina Bokova stated regret over the decisions by acknowledging the withdrawals are a “loss for multilateralism”. Robarchek asserts the problem with social control lies in the emphasis on control rather than the social. He concludes, “…the willingness to give society’s interests precedence over one’s own wishes and impulses is largely rooted in individuals’ relationship to the community”. In terms of US-Israel relations with other nations, UNESCO, and other UN agencies: the US and Israel determined their parts are greater than the whole. US-Israel allowed their own interest to trump the superordinate interest of the community (the world, in this instance), thereby, discarding democracy and peace because of unresolved conflict. Fry suggests ‘us vs them’ contributes to intergroup hostility because of a failure to cultivate a common identity. He proposes peace has two essential variables: interdependence and cooperation. Interdependence and cooperation bring about peace through the development of values that inform behaviors.

Calhoun hypothesizes the practicality of belonging is problematic for some because “intense group commitments and claims to group rights can threaten individual liberties…” and an individualist democracy does not hold value in belonging and denies its importance. He implies belonging is imperative to the fulfillment of “multilayered, multilateral polities” so democracies flourish rather than become empires. Put another way, belonging keeps democracies from getting too big for their britches. The US and Israel, both possessing strengths and weakness, conflated financial investment as responsibility and a single alliance as partnership. They fail to recognize that “neglect[ing] social solidarity… neglecting social bases of their own efficacy, while others are all too aware of the limits of their individual capacity are clearly in need of collective support in relation to the challenges the world throws at them.” It is imperative for the US and Israel to recognize their fates are interconnected with other nations. The days of selfish thinking and isolationist behavior are gone as the world is uniting around a common identity with a common goal, and the US and Israel are the odd ones out.

Belonging matters.

Paying Homage: Dignity Despite Difference

A memorial plaque for Dr. Charles R. Drew — Dr. Charles Richard Drew. Source: David, Creative Commons.

Prentice Baptiste asserted in 1970 “Knowledge is socially distributed, what you know is what you have been allowed to know”. This holds true today. The human right to an education, though purportedly universal, has been applied in a culturally-specific manner, and oftentimes to the detriment of marginalized populations such as African-Americans (United Nations, 1976). Dr. Charles Drew is one of many whose profound contributions to the world could very well have been derailed if he were not afforded an opportunity to pursue advanced studies. Some argue opportunity is the test of a person’s mettle. I argue opportunity can be unfairly doled out to those in power. Dr. Drew persevered however, despite a structural bias against black students and the willful omissions of black scientists in history books and academia-at-large, including the very institution he so greatly benefited: the American medical complex.

The contributions of black scientists have, historically, been glossed over or explained by grievously inaccurate idioms such as “right place, right time” (Baptiste & Boyer, 2000). Researchers and advocates for human rights walk a fine line when memorializing contributions of all marginalized persons- including Dr. Charles R. Drew. On one hand, the challenges and struggles of these individuals must be contextualized (i.e. drawing upon the unique historical and sociocultural challenges resulting from their marginalizing status) to pay proper homage to both the brilliance of these individuals’ contributions and structural difficulties they faced. On the other hand, we must not indulge in “inspiration porn”, thereby overemphasizing marginalization status over these individuals’ work and benefit to society. With this conceptual framework in mind, this blog has two aims: 1) to provide a historical account of the life and work of Dr. Charles R. Drew and 2) contextualize the narrative of Dr. Drew through the lens of the ongoing struggle for equal human rights in America.

The Life of Dr. Charles R. Drew

Imagine for a moment being a teenager again. Some of us were pimply and awkward. Some were voted prom king or queen. Some teenagers hated school, while some earned straight A’s. What did you want to be when you were a teenager? A writer? An athlete? Charles Drew of Foggy Bottom, Washington DC, in his final year of high school, meekly wrote in his senior yearbook: “I want to be an electrical engineer”. Just as the future Dr. Charles R. Drew was no ordinary doctor, his extraordinary achievements began even in high school (US National Library of Medicine, 2017). After high school, Charles Drew attended Amherst University on an athletic scholarship, where he was an average student but an exceptional football player. At Amherst, he (not originally interested in the sciences) experienced two major losses: a severe hospitalization following a football injury and the death of his sister from tuberculosis prompting an interest in biology and medicine- an interest that compelled him to apply to medical school (US National Library of Medicine, 2017).

The majority of Black Americans were rarely afforded the opportunity to attend prestigious training programs in higher education during the 1920s and 1930s, although some schools did allow a handful of ‘colored’ students every year (US Library of Medicine, 2017). When Drew graduated from university, he was accepted to Harvard Medical School with the stipulation he defer his admission by one year. Drew refused. He attended McGill University in Montreal, Quebec Canada, beginning a path that would land his name and accomplishments in medical history books internationally (US Library of Medicine, 2017). At McGill and throughout his residency at Montreal General Hospital, he began research on fluid replacement in the human body. He then went on to study transfusion at Columbia University, one of the best medical institutions in the United States, and in 1940, Dr. Drew became the first African-American to earn a doctoral degree in medical science from Columbia (US Library of Medicine, 2017). Without reference to the sociocultural and historical experiences of Black Americans in the 1920’s and 1930’s, Dr. Drew’s attempts to enroll and successfully complete medical programs appear to reflect the struggle of any student wishing to break into higher education. Applying the conceptual framework of his marginalizing status (of African descent) plus the inherent and structural bias against black students and professionals, his accomplishments gain more depth. Drew not only overachieved scholastically (a difficult feat for anyone embarking on higher education), but he also successfully moved through a structure bent on forcing him out of the academy in the first place- the ingrained racism festering in all most aspects of American culture.

A mobile blood bank. — Publicity2. Source: Shuyun, Creative Commons.

His Medical Legacy

Dr. Drew perfected the science of collecting, storing, and mobilizing blood donations (US National Library of Medicine, 2017). In 1940, he and his collaborators standardized these procedures, and this method soon became a critically necessary tool for the Red Cross during America’s involvement in World War II (US National Library of Medicine, 2017). As a leading expert in blood banking, he created “bloodmobiles” (mobile blood donation stations) and significantly helped America and its allies in the world war treat wounded soldiers and civilians on the battlefront (Gugliemo, 2010). Of tragic irony, Dr. Drew himself was unable to donate blood due to the fact he was of African descent. It is a testament to his character, both as a scientist and as a man, that Drew funneled his intellect and humanitarian spirit into a system that still viewed him as a second-class citizen.

Dr. Drew understood this injustice and the similar injustices of other race-based medical policies in the United States during the Jim Crow era. During the war, Drew practiced what some may consider nonviolent resistance of these policies. Historians of Drew and other medical professionals suspect these professionals would at times mislabel blood collection samples, thereby ensuring blood donated by black Americans reached the Red Cross and the injured people in need. Blood donations at this time (1940s) were required to be segregated along racial lines; ‘white’ blood could suit any medical needs while ‘colored’ blood was only allowed in ‘lesser’ facilities (local hospitals and the like; Guglielmo, 2010). While giving a speech to workers’ union in 1944, he proclaimed “the source of plasma was disregarded by physical and medical corpsmen on the front lines”, meaning ‘colored’ blood was being used in the exact same capacity to save lives as white blood (Guglielmo, 2010). These segregation plans imposed by the US were selectively followed, and others Drew worked with asserted “… these segregation plans were [not] carried through in in detail from beginning to end” (Guglielmo, 2010).

His Greatest Achievement

Drew’s accomplishments as a medical researcher, yes, are profound. However, a more interesting and little-known part of his story may outweigh his hematological inventions. As previously stated, when Drew attempted to begin his medical training, he faced institutional discrimination from the American higher education academy. Throughout his time as a researcher, he was not able to donate blood due to racist and discriminatory laws. His career, at every turn, was affected and slowed by systematic racism permeating throughout both the American academy and American medical industrial complex. However, these inequalities did not stop Dr. Drew and likely compelled him to use his stature in the medical profession to train and empower young African-American men and women hoping to study medicine. Until his untimely death in 1950, Dr. Charles R. Drew served as a mentor to young African-American doctors during his tenure as Chair of Department of Surgery at Howard University School of Medicine (Cornely, 1950). While the annals of history and medicine will likely remember him as the father of the bloodbank, the young black doctors he meticulously trained very well owe their intellectual lineage to Dr. Drew’s ferocity in achieving his dreams and a stark unwillingness to allow the same plight to slow those who came after him. It was not enough that Dr. Drew created a life-saving medical procedure for which the world will forever be indebted, but he also took it upon himself to train future black doctors. If we examine the ripples created from the life and work of Dr. Drew, we find academic prowess and personal resilience throughout his life. He is academically and medically renowned for his revolutionary paradigm of blood collection and storage- the first ripple. His students, mentees, and contemporaries revere him for his personal investment in the professional accomplishments of his students at Howard University- the second ripple. Finally, Drew is one of many marginalized individuals who successfully navigated a system attempting at every turn to inconvenience or diminish his work. Marginalized persons, of any marginalization status, possess the faculties to dismantle and undermine the antagonistic systems around them, such as the American academic and medical field was to Dr. Drew. Our goal as human rights advocates must be the empowerment of these persons, without indulging in ‘inspiration porn’ or glorifying marginalization status at the expense of losing sight of the actual person. The person, in this case Dr. Drew, must remain the central focus of historical accounts such as these. To overemphasize minority or marginalization statuses is to do a disservice to both the individual and to the very philosophy of human rights: dignity despite difference.

References

Baptiste, H. P. (1970). A black educator’s view: The pseudo-sacrosanct role of intelligence in education. Notre Dame Journal of Education, 1(2).

Baptiste, H. P. & Boyer, J. B. (2000). African American males and the scientific endeavor. Journal of African American Men, 4(4), 49-61.

Cornely, P. B. (1950). Charles R. Drew (1904-1950): An appreciation. Phylon, 11(2), 176-177.

Guglielmo, T. A. (2010). “Red Cross, double cross”: Race and America’s World War II-era blood donor service. The Journal of American History, 97(1), 63-90.

Haber, L. (1970). The Afro-American scientist- Why don’t we know him. The Science Teacher, 37(5), 46-48.

Janken, K. R. (1996). A legendary death, a legendary divide. Reviews in American History, 24(4), 657-662.

United Nations (1976). International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

US National Library of Medicine (2017). The Charles R. Drew Papers. Online. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/BG/p-nid/336

Reframing Intimate Partner Violence: Human Rights in the Home

co-authored by Lindsey Reid, Ajanet Rountree, Nicholas Sherwood, and Nora Hood

Domestic violence, domestic abuse, domestic terrorism, intimate partner violence (IPV)—all refer to abusive patterns of behavior within the context of relationship. While a universal definition has not been agreed upon, this blog operationally defines IPV as “causing or attempting to cause physical or mental harm to a household member or engaging in activity toward a family or household member that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.” In other words, IPV transpires when an individual exerts abusive control over another, resulting in a pattern of physical and/or psychological pain. Due to the extensiveness of IPV, we concur with the CDC assessment that IPV is a public health and a human rights issue, as stated in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. While we tend to think repressive governments or other sinister forces violate human rights, survivors of IPV experience and endure human rights violations within their home. With this blog, we aim to raise awareness of your rights in a relationship.

What is Intimate Partner Violence?

The vagueness of the term “IPV” makes recognizing and combatting this human rights violation difficult; as is the case with any vague definition in the human rights literature. One thorny issue in particular is the oftentimes (over)emphasis of the physical elements of IPV. To be completely clear: IPV, or any form of relational abuse or neglect, refers to physical and psychological maltreatment of an individual. Just because there are no physical scars does not mean it is not abuse. Psychological IPV includes behaviors such as: creating psychological isolation, sexual abuse (unwanted sexual contact, inhibiting access to birth control, unwanted sexual comments, and pressuring or threatening someone into sex), economic abuse (taking actions in order to maintain total control of the household’s finances), and digital abuse (using technology to control, stalk, or manipulate the survivor). This list is neither complete nor comprehensive; IPV as a human rights violation can take many, many forms.

Who are the victims and survivors of IPV? The classical answer is a wife or husband with a marriage; this is why the original term to describe IPV was ‘domestic abuse’ (implying this crime occurs within a domestic setting). The new term of IPV expands that outlook to include unmarried partners, as well as any form of relationship with emotional closeness and proximity. IPV can happen between married partners, and IPV can happen on a first date.

The Changing Demographics of IPV

As ‘battered wife syndrome’ has fallen out of favor, the IPV has been shaped and expanded to include male, female, and child survivors and perpetrators alike. While majority of IPV perpetrators are male, human rights advocates and laypersons alike must recognize perpetrators come in all genders and ages. In previous decades, cultural stigma against male victims may have pressured men from speaking out against their abusers; therefore, the actual gender breakdown of this crime remains unknown.

Male and female perpetrators themselves utilize markedly different forms of violence, which may compound efforts to qualify and deconstruct the gender breakdown of IPV. Machado et al. studied Portuguese men and discovered a pattern among their female perpetrators: “self-partner aggression”. They characterize self-partner aggression as the occurrence where the female injures herself in some way and then claims to be a victim of domestic violence to the police. She (the perp) takes advantage of confirmation bias, recognizing society generally believes that the male partner is abusing his female partner as it confirms gender stereotypes and social norms. Female abusers may also be more likely to use weapons or other objects to cause harm. One study involved a sample of 2,760 victims using the National Crime Victimization Survey from 1987 to 2003 found that 6% of the male victims had been stabbed with a knife, while 1% of the female victims had. Additionally, they found 10% of the male victims had been hit by an object that was thrown by their abuser, while 3% of the female victims had. However, male victims were less frequently found to have experienced violence through direct contact such as grabbing or pulling, with 20% of them having experienced it, while 53% of the females had.

Finally, IPV is not limited to adult perpetrators. Children can exhibit abusive behavior towards anyone in the household, whether another child or an adult. The normative assumption is parents possess the power in the home when compared to children, so it is difficult to imagine children as abusive. Control is the motivation for domestic violence and abuse; therefore, it is necessary that we pay attention when children perform violent actions, avoid brushing them off as merely “bad kids” because the behavior and consequences may have a serious impact on the present and future. Children exhibiting abusive behavior, if unchecked and untreated, may later show further signs of psychological deviance or disorder.

a picture of a boy with 'stupid' written across his forehead — Stupid IV. Source: Laura Lewis, Creative Commons

Controlling to Death

Social researchers have long sought to understand the motives of IPV perpetrators in order to predict violent behavior patterns. By predicting situations of relational violence, social researchers can empower advocates, policy-makers, and survivors themselves prevent occurrences of IPV. Several conceptual frameworks of IPV exist, including the stress-diathesis model, feminist / gender studies theories, and a pathological need for psychological control.

The stress-diathesis model suggests abusive behavior results from high psychosocial stress on the perpetrator. As the stress load increases, the perpetrator takes his or her frustration out on a less-threatening target (the victim). In this model, attempts to mitigate or prevent IPV focus on the perpetrator eliminating or healthily dealing with stressors. This theory has fallen out of favor, as its deterministic view of patterns of abuse at times ‘excuse’ perpetrators for their behavior. However, these theorists take a biopsychological approach to understanding behavior, which indeed aids in painting a holistic portrait of motivations and emotions in general.

By contrast, feminist and gender-studies theories focus on the broad sociocultural factors compelling IPV in perpetrators. Exploring the notion of male dominance in interpersonal relationships, Ornstein and Rickne sampled 714 post-separated and divorced couples in Sweden in 2001. They suggest separation between partners triggers a loss of control (especially for the male partner), weakening his domination of the situation, thus increasing the escalations of violence in the relationship. Violence reported by the respondents showed high variance, including verbal abuse (i.e. name-calling and cursing) psychological abuse resultant from emotional vulnerability of the perpetrator (i.e. feelings of inferiority), and finally physical abuse (including stalking and physical / sexual assault). Overall, feminist and gender-focused theories explore how fundamental issues of identity (such as gender) influences the occurrence of IPV.

Finally, the “control” theory of IPV posits an unhealthy need for psychological control, regardless of gender, is the most significant factor predicting IPV. This theory formulates relational abuse is symptom of a person’s subjective feeling of lack of control in a situation. Violence is therefore the means to an end, with the ‘end’ being feelings of control. Controlling behavior can take many forms, including stalking. The National Council commission in Sweden issued a 2006 report of 4000 surveys that found 362 (3/4 of whom are women) responded to questions of stalking in their lifetime, with 3% in the previous year. In 2011, the establishment of Swedish stalking law brought a four-year prison sentence for those found guilty. It is imperative to note justice systems, regardless of locale, treat the symptoms of violence but not the roots.

a picture of a girl with bruises on her back — Domestic Violence. Source: CMY Kane, Creative Commons.

Regardless of the underlying causes (such as stress, gender roles, or a need for control), each case of IPV is unique and complicated. Recognizing signs of an abusive relationship is the first step and often difficult for the survivor to admit. Leaving the relationship itself is a whole other ordeal. Ornstein and Rickne affirm Kit Gruelle, a victim advocate in North Carolina (NC), who insists battered women are the experts on their relationships- no one knows more about IPV than someone who has gone through it. Gruelle suggests there is a noticeable pattern in abusive relationships—the couple has good days and bad days, just like every other couple. However, the ‘normalcy’ of the good days in no way makes up for the deviance of the bad days. Perpetrators often wear a façade of kindness and normalcy in mixed company, which makes spotting these perpetrators even more difficult.

Deanna remained married to her husband, Robbie, for nine years. She returned to him three times over the course of the years despite police knowledge of threats and violent tendencies. ‘The police knew he was violent but they believed he wasn’t violent enough to kill someone’.

When Robbie kidnapped and beat her across state lines, courts sentenced him to 21 years in prison—majority of the sentence for the kidnapping rather than the abuse. Assault on a female is an A1 misdemeanor in NC, resulting in 150 days in jail, whereas theft is a felony. IPV (or domestic violence) laws in Alabama have a stratified penalty process, ranging from Class A misdemeanor to Class A felony.

Controlling and abusive behavior may persist, even when the abusive relationship terminates. Prison, for many abuse survivors, is the only place they feel safe due to a system that does not protect them.

Latina returned to her abusive boyfriend numerous times because of love and at the time of his death, there was a warrant for his arrest. Courts charged her with first-degree murder when she killed him, after years of threats and abuse left her blind in her right eye.

Gruelle concludes, “our criminal justice system requires that she be beaten enough to satisfy the system, and by the time it get to that point, she’s already been so worn down psychologically and physically and emotionally. That’s when it’s really time for advocates to step up and begin to treat her like she has some value because she’s been told now systematically that she doesn’t. The courts have told her that she doesn’t have value; her partner has told her that she doesn’t have value… and all that strips away from her. Advocates, instead of stripping away, we have to build back up.”

If You See Something, Say Something

It is important to understand the difficulty of reporting cases of IPV. Who wants to get their partner in legal trouble? Who wants to report their wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, and partner is abusive to them? Who is ready to accept they themselves are abused? IPV, like other forms of sex-based violence, often leaves the survivor in a traumatized state. This can manifest psychologically (irritable mood, overeating / undereating, splitting, dependency, fear of being along or fear of being with the abusive partner, and increasing isolation) or physically (exhaustion, severe weight gain or weight loss, and jumpiness). The symptoms of abusive relationships typically run deep, and the longer the relationship lasted, the more difficult these symptoms may be to spot. One critical symptom to look for is increasing isolation. The IPV situations typically result from an over-controlling or obsessive partner. These controllers may begin their abusive pattern of behavior by cutting off the victim from social contact with others outside of the relationship; the less face-time the victim has with others, the less likely to victim will be able to ask for help. In total isolation, the victim is hardpressed to find an ally, and he or she may fall prey to hopelessness and further traumatization. If you believe you know someone is in an abusive situation, reach out.

IPV is a complex human rights violation, and efforts to combat IPV must be flexible, durable, and persistent. Many social scientists work on deconstructing the psychopathology of perpetrators and patterns of survival in IPV victims. Advocates use their voice and social capital to broadcast the plight of IPV survivors and the identity of perpetrators. Ethical policy-makers codify punishments for IPV perpetrators, and enact funding for NGOs and government organizations that help IPV survivors. Finally, you can take action too. If you see something, say something. If you see a friend or loved one is in a relationship that does not seem right, initiate a conversation. Commit to naming and preventing intimate partner violence whenever you see it.

If you or someone you know is or may be in an abusive relationship, here are authorities to contact: in immediate danger, call 911 and The National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233.

Ms. Hood considers domestic violence to be a form of domestic terrorism, and aims to raise awareness about the issue through her efforts including ThreeDaily.org.

Why Peace? Because Dignity.

DAY OF PEACE. Source: jtimm, Creative Commons

The Institute for Human Rights, like many global NGO’s, aims to promote and protect human rights within our local, national, and international communities. Specific human rights issues have been explored on this blog, ranging from child marriage to the genocide in Myanmar. This is one approach to understanding human rights: picking apart the issues, analyzing human rights documents (such as the Universal Declaration for Human Rights), and working towards a world where human rights are universal and protected. Another way of conceptualizing human rights is through the lens of peace promotion. Whereas human rights are, typically, legal and political by nature, peace promotion calls upon a person’s moral and ethical faculties. While these concepts are similar in many ways (after all, laws are supposed to reflect the ethics of its society), ‘never the twain shall meet’ is more often the case. In preparation for the International Day of Peace – September 21^st – this blog explores a central concept in both peace and human rights: human dignity. Human dignity, I argue, is why peace promotion is necessary for humanity and why its active promotion is ethically justified.

Dignity, Human Rights, and Peace

What is dignity? Many of us have a vague idea of what dignity means: self-worth, inherent value, spiritual or religious connotations, and the like. The operational definition of dignity in human rights and peace literature can be hazy as well; in fact, I have struggled to find a cohesive and comprehensive definition. Dignity seems to be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ concept, used with substantially different connotations, in many academic and applied fields.

The origins of dignity, in the formerly legitimate social systems of aristocracy, utterly juxtapose today’s definition (Kleinig & Evans, 2013). The medieval concept of dignity came from a ranked / hierarchical social system; ‘dignitaries’, a person who possessed dignity, held higher socioeconomic status than those who did not possess ‘dignity’. With dignity-from-rank came benefits: physical (in the form of land ownership) or metaphysical (with an endowment of gravitas). This conceptual framework of dignity shaped how the term was used in philosophy and other social sciences for many years, until the ideas of Immanuel Kant changed the relationship between dignity and ethical behavior. Sometimes, with the right idea and platform, words completely change their meaning within a society.

Moving away from the ‘ranked’ definition of dignity, Kant proposed a new form of dignity. First and foremost, dignity is shared by all humankind (this universality is also a feature of the current definition of dignity in the world of human rights and peace; Kleinig & Evans, 2013). Although Kant wasn’t the first to universalize dignity (many historical antecedents are found in Stoic and Renaissance theology), the popularity of Kant’s philosophy broadcasted the idea into the public sphere in such a way that the idea was intractable (Kleinig & Evans, 2013). In short, Kant emphasized the role of ethical choice and moral behavior in dignity. Dignity, in Kant’s view, is not a nebulous status enjoyed by the upper echelon of society. It is instead the byproduct of both a person’s God-given (in Kant’s words) ability to create an ethical code of behavior and a person’s choice to live by the code he or she created. Dignity is found in all persons because dignity reflects a skilled shared by us: our capacity to both make moral judgements and adhere to the rules we make. Through this example, we see how the concept of dignity experienced quite a stark transformation by going from an attribute only a select few possessed to an inherent potential all persons possess.

The story doesn’t end here, however. The definition of dignity is contested to this very day. While the role and influence of human dignity in human rights documents is uncontested (‘dignity’ is mentioned in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example), some thinkers propose the usefulness of dignity has been lost (Schroeder, 2012; United Nations, 1948). The vagueness of ‘human dignity’ increases the number of its applications, but Schroeder (2012) and other scholars claim the ‘one-size-fits-all’ mentality threatens the concept from within. They argue the dignity-based rights approach is fallible because the justification for rights comes not from human beings themselves, but from a philosophical virtue assigned to their experience. While the merits of this argument are important (one such example is the push for greater specificity in defining ‘dignity), the ubiquity of dignity in human rights literature makes the divorce of human rights and human dignity a herculean task. Dignity, with all its complications, is at the heart of human rights.

International Day of Peace

Moving away from the conceptual aspect of peace, let’s focus on a practical application. How can we identify normative values held by a society and whether these values are peaceful or not? One way is to look at cultural events and how these events are celebrated. Let us look at Independence Day as an example. On July 4^th, many Americans attend cookouts, don red/white/blue attire, and a general attitude of patriotism is (hopefully) experienced by all Americans. By comparing the American independence celebration to other less extravagant independence day celebrations, we can make the assertion that America is an especially patriotic nation. Yet, what celebrations do we have for the concept of peace? We do not have a “Day of Kantian-Defined Human Dignity”, but we do have the International Day of Peace.

International Day of Peace is a celebration of the international values of dignity, human rights, and peace. First established in 1981, the United Nations unanimously voted to make September 21^st the International Day of Peace. The UN stated the reason behind Peace Day: “commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples”. This is a day to reaffirm each person’s and each nation’s commitment to a peaceful way of life and to celebrate the strides made towards peace across the globe. The theme for 2017 International Day of Peace is “Together for Peace: Respect, Safety, and Dignity for All”. The UN created a short video for 2017 International Day of Peace which can be found here.

The IHR is celebrating the International Day of Peace with INTO UAB today from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Stern Library. INTO UAB is hosting an International Day of Peace Food & Culture Festival. INTO UAB provides English-learning opportunities and education assistance for non-US students with aspirations to study at a UAB undergraduate or graduate program.

References

Kleinig, J. & Evans, N. G. (2013). Human flourishing, human dignity, and human rights. Law and Philosophy, 32(5), 539-564.

Schroeder, D. (2012). Human rights and human dignity: An appeal to separate the conjoined twins. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(3), 323-335.

United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

The Fight against Hate

In the aftermath of Charlottesville, there has been national attention on hate and the fight against it. One must wonder where the line—if there is one—between free speech and hate speech; it does exist but it is a very fine line. The First Amendment protects citizens against government infringement upon speech but it does not explicitly protect against retaliation from private companies and universities. Since the protection of hate speech does not exist wholly under the First Amendment, employers fired several of the Neo-Nazis present at the Charlottesville rally.

I interned for SPLC on Campus this summer. It is the Southern Poverty Law Center’s campus outreach program. It aims to promote LGBTQ+ rights and racial, economic, and immigrant justice on college campuses and within local communities. It also advocates against hate crimes and bigotry. Charlottesville happened during my last week at the center. The live streams flooded social media and the positive collective response blew me away. Although the amount of hate disheartened me, I had hope because people were just as shocked as I was, and everyone I knew was condemning the hate while sending love and support to victims. There were solidarity rallies and protests promoting unity. There was also an increase in SPLC on Campus club registration.

SPLC on Campus began two years ago. Lecia Brooks, director of Outreach at the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as the Civil Rights Memorial Center, launched the program into full throttle. There are around forty-five active clubs in the States now with the staff for the program standing at only three people. These three people, including Lecia Brooks, Daniel Davis (the SPLC on Campus Coordinator), and Shay DeGolier (Outreach and Organizing Specialist) have been the foundation for these clubs. They fight hate relentlessly and push for more college students to do the same. College students have historically been a source of advocacy and activism; we still are. Here at UAB, the fight for equity, inclusion, and unity continue with student organizations like SPLC on Campus club, and Gender and Sexuality Alliance among others.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), founded in 1971, tracks hate groups across the United States. As of today, there are 917 active groups. It is important to note that these groups are not just comprised of those on the far Right. What defines a hate group? The SPLC defines one as a group “[having] beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” (Hate Map, n.d.). Therefore, any organization that speaks out negatively about another about things they cannot or should not have to change–the color of their skin, their gender or sexuality, their religion, etc.

I have always heard the expressions, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” and “If they can’t fix/change it in a minute, don’t tell them.” The embedding of the first saying—along with the Golden Rule—took place in both the private and public spheres for me. Teachers, parents, and random posters with cats reminded me to treat others as I wanted to be treated. Everyone has heard at least some version of these clichés. Yet, when did we stop living by the childhood mantras we learned in kindergarten? So many people try to change things about others, and many do not do this kindly. If your friend notices something wrong with you, they might lean over and whisper, “Hey, you have some spinach in your teeth” but they would never say to you, “Hey, your skin is too dark.” It is interesting that hateful rhetoric is no longer taboo; it is mainstream.

A recent study reveals the very fine line between free speech and hate speech when employing the First Amendment. Supporters are quick to jump to the defense of someone saying something racist, often using free speech as a justification. However, with the removal of the targeted group identifier occurs, people rarely use the same defense. How far does the defense for free speech go? On a recent NPR Hidden Brain podcast, researcher Chris Crandall discusses a study he performed on this same question post-election, which revealed that people thought it was much more acceptable to speak out against groups that Trump had targeted in his speeches. The research proved some believe that if someone in a position of authority can use such speech with little to no retaliation, then it must be okay. Prior to the election, many withheld their bias for fear of punishment, look no further than the vilification of Mel Gibson or Michael Richards. Following the election, these barriers seemingly no longer exist, allowing a flood of prejudices to permeate our culture.

Remaining nonviolent in the face of such hatred is essential in overcoming it. Fighting fire with fire cannot solve this problem. In fact, there is evidence by counter protests that have ignited with violence. The entire fight for social justice is a figurative fight, fueled by protests, solidarity, unity, and participation. We cannot counter hate speech with more of the same rhetoric. You may wonder: What can I do to fight hate speech? My suggestions is get involved in groups that advocate against it. Reach out and get involved with human rights/social justice groups like SPLC on Campus, HRC, IHR, Amnesty International, and others. Hold protests and react nonviolently to such charged commentary. The most important thing to do is act. As I learned at SPLC, apathy is not an option.

The UAB Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion will host a panel “From Protest to Academic Freedom: Free Speech, Hate Speech, and the First Amendment on College Campuses” tonight, Wednesday, September 20 at 6pm, Heritage Hall, room 102.

Here’s a more in-depth look at some steps you can take to prevent and fight against hate: https://www.splcenter.org/20170814/ten-ways-fight-hate-community-response-guide.

Caitlin Beard is a first-year graduate student from Hartselle, Alabama. She is pursuing a Masters of Arts in the Anthropology of Peace and Human Rights. Deaf culture courses and interaction with the Deaf World for her ASL minor ignited an interest in the field of human rights—specifically how it pertains to the Deaf and other oppressed groups.

The CRPD: Path to Inclusion

UN General Assembly. Photo by Aseel Hajazin.

It has been almost been two months since the Institute for Human Rights at UAB has gone to the United Nations and the experience is still so surreal. I have always dreamed about one day working for the United Nations; I just did not realize that the opportunity would come so soon. This was also my first time in New York and actually in a lively city, so I was also really looking forward to that experience. Our team was not only going to the UN for a tour but to work. As a rapporteur, I took notes and summarized the comments made by the participating countries during the general debate and concluding conference.

Even though every delegate of their respective country has meaningful contribution to the conference, the countries that stood out the most to me was my home country of Jordan, and my host country, Saudi Arabia. In the Arab World, persons with disabilities are unfortunately sometimes invisible members of society. The conference changed my perspective on the inclusion of Arab people with disabilities in their home countries. I was fortunate enough to interact with many Arabs with disabilities in the conference and listen to their experiences. The statements that stood out to me expressed feelings of relief due to an acknowledgment by their governments; noting a significant improvement of inclusion of persons with disabilities in society, through the implementation of special programs focusing on the education and recreational needs of people with disabilities that were not present 20 years ago.

When I was 12 years old, I visited a school called The Lady of Peace in Amman, Jordan. This school focuses on providing both the educational, recreational and psychological needs of all people with disabilities. I mentioned this to one of the fellow Jordanians participating in the conference, and she knew exactly which school I was talking about! She updated me on the school and let me know they have become very involved in advocating for the rights of people with disabilities by attending conferences throughout Amman. They are not only focusing their attention on providing these services but also promoting disability rights as human rights. She also highlighted that even though the school is a Christian led organization, both Muslims and Christians respectfully come together to help organize fundraisers to continue help the school keep it functioning. The Lady of Peace continues to have a strong sense of unity and community, even after all of these years.

For me, the most impactful moment of the whole conference were the comments made by the delegate of Iraq. They highlighted how global factors need to begin focusing on people affected by disabilities due to war and violence. The delegate mentioned how before violence and war, many of the refugees were not previously disabled. Global assistance and humanitarian efforts need to focus on helping these people adapt to their new situation by providing both technological and psychological assistance and support. Before the conference, the concept of disability due to violence never crossed my mind, and after the delegates remarks I experienced an “ah-ha” moment. The media, when reporting of refugees, focuses on the health and shelter of refugees but not once have I personally heard the media report on the struggles faced by people with disabilities. Initially, I was disappointed in myself for overlooking this population. I now realize that I need to take advantage of my awareness of the reality of disability and war, advocating for awareness to other members of society.

My favorite moment of the whole conference were the comments made by the delegate of Mexico. She was very vibrant and uplifting and reminded members of the conference that we need to change the way we portray people with disabilities. We as a society discuss disability we need to make it fun, exciting and in her words “sexy.” I enjoyed her remarks because she reminded us that we do not have to remain serious all the time when discussing disabilities, and if we want members of our society to care about disability rights, we need to approach the topic in a more engaging and optimist manner.

Overall, this experience was humbling. Throughout the conference, I felt surrounded by love, acceptance, and people who want to make a genuine change in the world. I learned so many different concepts from how the UN operates to what members of our society can implement regarding policy to influence change and real results. I hope one day to have the opportunity to return to the UN and work for them. Thank you to Dr. Reuter for this opportunity, and thank you to my team for making this trip so memorable. I will never forget this opportunity and will definitely cherish it forever.

A 29th Floor Perspective

1st Ave from the 29th Floor of the UN. Photo by Ajanet Rountree.

The United Nations (UN) Conference on State Parties (CoSP10) experience began on the 29^th floor for me. I say this because I lived in New York City and toured the UN on a couple of occasions. Additionally, living a life that is inclusive of persons with disabilities is in my wheelhouse. A friend and mentor utilizes crutches to help him walk because an accident, when he was younger, took the full use of his legs. Cancer took the use of B’s legs when she was a baby, and a motorcycle accident left my uncle paralyzed from the waist, making them both wheelchair users. I lead with all of this to say that making room in my world for persons with disabilities is something I have done for decades. My familiarity, in a sense, is akin to the knowledge gained by a couple of tours of the UN lobby and gift shop. Therefore, walking into CoSP10, I was prepared or so I thought.

I had never been on the 29^th floor. The perspective is much different up there.

The Division of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) is located on the 29^th floor of the UN. The DESA team is responsible for both the economic and social affairs of persons with disabilities for all the UN member states as directly related to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). They write and disseminate policies and ideas to the member states as suggested modes of implementation. Each policy and suggestion lies within the UN mandated Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which is an extension of the 1945 UN Charter. SDGs are the 17 goals all member states, through collaboration, seek to achieve by 2020 as a means of ensuring “no one is left behind” while honoring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and CRPD. Sitting in the conference room, I am inspired by the opportunity but not fully awake to what is about to take place.

Enter Daniela Bas.

Bas is the DESA director. During her chat with us, she disclosed a couple of points that stand out to me. First, the UN, as an employing entity, is beginning to put into action many of the policies and measures, tasked to member states for implementation. Most specifically, employing persons with disabilities in key leadership positions of which she is one. Second, the UN is an organization led by human beings seeking to do the right thing. With full acknowledgment, she reminds that the UN is not perfect but that the process of coalescing 196 backgrounds, traditions, religious affiliations, and attitudes to make significant strides at securing human rights and making the world more peaceful, is an accomplishment. Lastly, when compared to men and boys, and those who are able-bodied, discrimination against women and girls with disabilities doubles, and even triples if they belong to a minority race or class in their country. This last point, triple discrimination for women and girls with disabilities will become a recurring theme in the conference for me. The harsh reality of this fact remains an echo in my soul to this moment.

Confrontation with another person’s truth requires an adjustment to what is known through experience and education, and assumed through familiarity.

I study and view life and the world with a gendered perspective in mind. I look for the role of women, our impact on families and societies, and our visibility and invisibility when it comes to equality. I am aware of the trials of living life at intersections. Intersectionality complicates because discrimination is complicated. I believe there is a temptation to separate the intersections so to obtain a solid understanding; however, it is in the attempt to separate that understanding is lost. Gaining a complete understanding of the dynamics of discrimination requires a holistic not segmented perspective.

Girls, irrespective of ability, are not as valuable or visible in many societies as boys are. Nora Fyles, head of the UN Girls Education Initiative (UNGEI) Secretariat, asserts invisibility is the fundamental barrier to education for girls with disabilities. She confirms this assertion when explaining the search for partnership on the gendered perspective education project by stating that 1/350 companies had a focus on girls with disabilities. For Bas, the failure to identify girls and women with disabilities is a failure to acknowledge their existence. Subsequently, if they do not exist, how can we expect them to hear their need? She suggests addressing crosscutting barriers. Leonard Cheshire Disability (LCD), in partnership with the World Bank, UNICEF, and UNGEI, hosted a side-event where they released their findings regarding a lack of inclusive education opportunities for girls with disabilities. Still Left Behind: Pathways to Inclusive Education for Girls with Disabilities sheds light on the present barriers girls, specifically those with disabilities, experience when seeking an education.

Article 26 of the UDHR lists education as a human right. Bas believes if knowledge is power, and power comes from education, the fact that 50% of women with a disability complete primary school and 20% obtain employment, reflects social and economic inequality. Ola Abu Al-Ghaib of LCD emphasizes policies, cultural norms, and attitudes about persons with disabilities perpetuate crosscutting barriers for girls with disabilities to receive an education. She concludes that schools are a mirror of society. In the absence of gendered sensitivity, boys advance and girls do not. Every failed attempt to address and correct the issue is a disservice to girls generally, and girls with disabilities, specifically.

It is imperative to remember that the spectrum of disability is multifaceted. Most people recognize developmental and physical disabilities like Downs Syndrome, Autism, visual and hearing impairment, and wheelchair users, but fail to consider albinism and cognitive disabilities as part of the mainstream disability narrative. Bulgaria is focusing on implementing Article 12 of CRPD regarding legal capacity. Legal consultant and lawyer, Marieta Dimitrova explains that under Bulgarian law, only reasonable persons have the right to independence; therefore, persons with cognitive disabilities receive the “unable” descriptor under assumption they are unable to reason and understand, thereby placing them under a guardian. Guardianship removes the right to participate in decisions regarding quality of life, which is a deprivation of liberty. She resolves that although full implementation into law awaits, stakeholders are seeking renewal in the new government because pilot projects have proven that an enjoyment of legal capacity in practice yields lower risk of abuse, changed attitude within communities, personal autonomy and flexibility.

Not all disabilities result from birth or accidents. War and armed conflict factor into 20% of individuals maimed while living in and fleeing from violence. A lack of medical access leave 90% of maimed individuals permanently disabled. Stephane from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) submits that for refugees with disabilities, access to essential services can be difficult on the journey and in camps, but also for those who are unable to flee. He infers a “double disability” inflicted upon refugees with disabilities: first as a refugee, and second as a person with a disability. Human Rights Watch advocates that refugee camps produce a humiliating and degrading existence for persons with physical disabilities because the “tricks” employed prior to arrival in the camps, are no longer applicable as wheelchairs sink in the mud and crutches break on rocky grounds. The Lebanese Association for Self-Advocacy (LASA) reports the underrepresentation of women and girls is significant when receiving information and access to assistance.

In a refugee simulation seminar, LASA informed that on the ground, confusion is high given that humanitarian organizations do not consult with each other, making communication difficult and non-supportive. For families with a person with a disability, nonexistence communication means a prevalence to fall victim to violence and harassment. Jakob Lund of UN Women divulges that humanitarian aid can be ineffective for women with disabilities, while Sharon with OHCHR suggests a clear dichotomy between the rights of the able-bodied and the rights of persons with disabilities holds central to the ineffectiveness. At the core of a lack of communication and accessibility is invisibility. Stephane concludes that there is an obvious need for a necessary and systematic retraining specific to educating others on how to see the invisible.

a picture of Chinatown, NYC and Brooklyn Bridge — Chinatown, NYC, and Brooklyn Bridge. Source: Madhu Nair, Creative Commons

The process of inclusion and equality relates directly to the decision to acknowledge a person’s existence. Retraining the mind to see any human being with a physical disability takes decisive action so I put myself to the test. First, I thought of all the famous women with a physical disability I could think of, and arrived at about six, including Heather Whitestone and Bethany Hamilton. I then googled celebrity women with disabilities which yielded a Huffington Post piece that identified Marlee Matlin, Frida Kahlo, Helen Keller, and Sudha Chandran as 4/10 “majorly successful people with disabilities”. I had Marlee Matlin and Helen Keller. What is more interesting is that I arrived at seven when naming men with physical disabilities. Here is the point: society is not inclusive of persons with disabilities if we have to strain our brains to remember the last time we sat next to, opened the door for, ate a meal with, or saw on the television/movie screen/church platform a person who did not look like us physically.

Perspective changes everything because perspective is everything.

Reconciling Political Spectacle and Genuine Empowerment

a photo of Nick on the UN floor — Source: Nicholas Sherwood

Disability is widely defined. Disability is typically thought of an impairment (though this term is quickly falling out of the common lexicon) of the physical, cognitive, intellectual, developmental, or other types of day-to-day functioning in an individual. This convention marked the 10^th anniversary of the formal UN codification of the international rights of persons with disabilities, and this year’s programmatic focus was on the inclusion of persons with disabilities in decisions affecting their lives. In other words, persons with disabilities worked side-by-side with UN representatives and other officials to comment on the progress of their rights. UAB’s Institute for Human Rights, in conjunction with American University’s Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP), presented research and policy direction.

This was my first time to visit the UN. Actually, my first time in New York City. Working with the United Nations has been a dream of mine since I was a young boy. I have dreamed of seeing the member states’ flags waving in front of the tall Manhattan skyscraper, hearing dozens of languages and dialects spoken, and of contributing to the founding principles of human rights and international governance. From inside the UN, the world is a much more complex place than the dream I had as a child. I will elaborate further.

As a rapporteur, I notated the official dialogue between state parties on their progress in implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I heard and transcribed over 80 state parties’ efforts to include these persons in the local, regional, national, and international conversation on how to foster a more inclusive world for persons with mental and physical differences. The wording here is intentional because I am choosing not to see persons as ‘disabled’ but with features different from my own; thereby, reframing the perception and honoring their right as a human being first, rather than a disability.

In some cases, the effort was fantastic while others left must to be desired. Australia, in particular, has had tremendous success reaching out to persons with disabilities, especially in aboriginal tribes. NGOs publicly name other states whose efforts are praiseworthy. Public addresses, which are by nature political, served to motivate other ‘lacking’ states to imagine and implement faster, more effective, and more inclusive policies for persons with disabilities. The political game was on full display. Some states simply paid lip service to the CRPD. One state in particular, infamously known for blatant human rights violations bordering on genocide, implored the audience their commitment to human rights and their government’s special attention to persons with disabilities. States with an abhorrent human rights record, upon delivery of their ‘efforts to promote the rights of persons with disabilities’, received cold eye rolls and scoffs from other diplomats. In the official meetings of the State Parties, no love was lost between states who actually adhered to the Convention and states who only signed and ratified for political purposes. The political optics were on full display, and attentive audience members could typically discern authentic investment in the CRPD and inauthentic investment. This political game was in stark contrast to the side events present throughout the convention.

The official State Meetings of the CRPD take place simultaneously with presentations on specific issues to persons with disabilities and solutions created by NGOs, states, and members of civil society. These presentations, similar in execution and functioning to an academic research conference, disarmed the political machine of the UN in favor of real, boots-on-the-ground- efforts to include and empower persons with disabilities from across the globe. Throughout the three days the conference took place, I was awestruck by the tenacity and ingenuity of disabled and non-disabled persons alike in efforts to eradicate the ‘ability barrier’ throughout the world. I heard presentations on cities with universal design (built with accessibility for all persons with disabilities), e-participation in governance by persons previously unable to self-advocate for their rights, research that educates policymakers on the special needs of persons with disabilities, and the general promotion of human rights regardless of ability for all persons. Here, the political spectacle was negligible. These are real persons—with and without physically evident disabilities–working in all corners of the world to ensure “no one is left behind”. Any jadedness from the political spectacle of the official meeting of State Parties dissipates by the passion and ingenuity of all actors displaying their unique methods to ensure universal human rights for persons with disabilities. The breakout sessions were visionary and motivating, empowering and inspirational. The real action is located here, not in the lofty UN assembly meet rooms. The full expression of human rights finds protection and promotion by humans, not by institutions.

Moving forward, as a human rights student and peace advocate, I am still very much interested in a career with the UN. This experience though, assisting in conference presentations and serving as Court Rapporteur for official State Party meetings, left a few indelible impressions on me and changed by outlook and understanding of the UN. Prior to this UN trip, I placed absolute faith the UN system and its machinations. I believed the Conventions (on disabilities, women, children, etc.) enforced human rights. I believed the UN was a human rights ‘police force’ of sorts. I believed international governance was a smooth process and was fruitful in protecting human rights and promoting peace.

Now I understand people, not documents, protect human rights. International governance works when purveyor of rights–people–are vigilant and unrelenting in the protection of their dignity. For those who may not have the opportunity to self-advocate, such as persons with disabilities, we must not put words in their mouths or patronizingly speak for them. They can speak for themselves. We, the able-bodied population, must offer our louder megaphones to them to ensure their voices find expression. The UN works when we, the global community, work with institutions of all levels–local, regional, national, and international–to ensure “no one is left behind” in the pursuit of a world enshrining human dignity and respect. The UN is indeed an ideal but people have the real power. Realistic idealism, in this regard, may be the optimal method to promote and protect human rights. We, the people, owe it to all members of society to remain vigilant, purposeful, and passionate in our advocacy. The tireless self-advocacy of persons with disabilities at the 10^th anniversary of the CRPD is a poignant reminder that apathy and indifference has no home in even the most marginalized populations. As a student of human rights and a global citizen at large, this experience changed me for the better.

NEVERTHELESS, SHE PERSISTED

Preventing the practice of FGM/C in primary schools. Source: DFID – UK Department for International Development Follow, Creative Commons.

These three words “NEVERTHELESS, SHE PERSISTED” by Mitch McConnell, meant as a means of expressing his authority over Elizabeth Warren on the Senate floor last month, have been co-opted by women around the world as a rallying cry and a reminder that women’s rights are human rights. The phrase uttered to news outlets, regarding Warren’s defiance as she read a letter from Coretta Scott King about the US Attorney General appointment of Jeff Sessions. As Warren read, she was interrupted, forced to stand down and remain silent for the duration of the session. Unshaken, Warren utilized another room and modern technology to continue the statement. The male Democrat Senators proceeded to read the entire letter on the Senate floor, without interruption. This scene symbolizes, in various ways around the world, the blatant and subtle, dismissive and disrespectful interaction of some men towards women.

Yesterday was International Women’s Day (IWD). IWD originated as a nod to the women in the 1909 New York City factory workers strike. A 1910 international meeting in Copenhagen established the annual recognition of female advancement in human rights, including voting rights, though there was no date for the observance; in 1975, the United Nations settled on March 8. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres explains that the protection of women and girls comes to fruition through empowerment, reducing the gender inequality that leads to discrimination, and bolstering socially and economically weak communities and societies. “Women’s legal rights, which have never been equal to men’s on any continent, are being eroded further.” Gender equality, one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, is an essential component in the plan “agreed by leaders of all countries” as they work in partnership to ensure the inclusion of all.

Women have been fighting against an imbalanced relationship between the sexes for centuries. Sherry Ortner believes “the universality of female subordination, the fact that it exists within every type of social and economic arrangement and in societies of every degree of complexity…something we cannot rout out simply by rearranging a few tasks and roles in the social system…The underlying logic of cultural thinking assumes the inferiority of women.” According to historian Gail Collins, the single women of the colonies were either “tobacco brides”, indentured servants who were raped and often forced into marriage, or labeled witches and spinsters. Married colonial women achieved the highest status and authority when contributing to the progress of the nation by working in the fields, growing crops, and harvesting food; black couples were indentured servants who once they gained their freedom, owned businesses and shops. At the time, black women did not have the same constraints as white women. She contends, “Virtually all the colonial women wanted to marry, but when they did, they were automatically stripped of their legal rights. A wife’s possessions became her husband’s, and she was unable to do any business on her own, sue, borrow money, or sign contracts. A married women was virtually powerless…His character determined how far she could rise in life.” Collins is describing colonial America; however, presently, in 2017, women—whether single or married– many countries around the world remain powerless, consigned to relying on the males in their family to determine who and what she becomes.

By the 1800s, white women and homemakers were creating reform movements and petitioning for equality; black women were now domestic and sexual property of slave owners. In 1848, abolitionist Elizabeth Cady Stanton gave her Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions at the Seneca Falls Women’s Convention she organized. Suffragette Susan B. Anthony pronounced, “Woman has been the great unpaid laborer of the world, and although within the last two decades a vast number of new employments have been opened to her, statistics prove that in the great majority of these, she is not paid according to the value of the work done, but according to sex.” The late 19^th century brings the right to vote to the women of New Zealand; however, for the public sphere to hear the voice of women, it will first arrive in the form of protest from around the world.

a picture of a women's protest from 1930s — Feminism. Source: kcochran06, Creative Commons.

The 20^th century generates the fight for suffrage via women like Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst in Britain. Margaret Sanger battles Comstock Laws, making birth control available for women desperate to end the circular nature of “barefoot and pregnant”. The rise of labor needs introduces women to factory work. Yet with wars end, women lost their jobs by being “expressly fired”, replaced by men, and reduced to the ranks to domesticity. In 1963, the Civil Right Act passed, the Commission on the Status of Women is established and the Equal Pay Act, which bars unequal pay for the same or similar work completed by men or women, within the same organization, becomes federal law. Betty Friedan in her book, The Feminine Mystique, exposes the American ideal as a myth, stating

“Over and over women heard voice of tradition and of Freudian sophistication that they could desire no greater destiny than to glory in their own femininity. Experts told them how to catch a man and keep him, how to breastfeed children and handle their toilet training… They were taught to pity the neurotic, unfeminine, unhappy women who wanted to be poets or physicists or presidents. They learned that truly feminine women do not want careers, higher education, political rights—the independence and the opportunities that the old-fashioned feminists fought for. All they had to do was devote their lives from earliest girlhood to finding a husband and bearing children.”

Enter the second wave of feminism. Ortner argues that ‘female is to nature as male is to culture’ is a code of practice derived to perpetuate inequality. Most distressing is that global humanity bought into this lie and label anyone willing to stand against it, deviant. Herein lies the disdain for the term “feminist”.

The characterization of feminists as an ambitious, aggressive, bossy, b*%$#y, bra-burning woman who hates all men reveals the failed understanding of a women who stand up for themselves and the rights of other women as a means of gender equality. The fight for feminists is political because the political is personal, and the personal, political as Leymah Gbowee believes. Though progress has been made, there are significant strides yet to be made on behalf of women, politically, socially, and economically; until the fullness of women’s rights are human rights is fully accepted, implemented, and recognized.

First, women need positions of governmental leadership. The public sphere has made room for female representation by respecting the human right to participate in country elections–Saudi Arabia was last in 2015—but the issues facing women are not accurately addressed. Of the 192 nations on earth, women represented 59 in the past 50 years. The feminine voice has representation on some local levels of government within the US; however, on the national level, women possess less than 20% of the seats. Conversely, Rwandan women account for 64% of parliamentary seats as of 2013. Rwanda, known for the 1994 genocide, “has the most women’s participation globally.” Additionally, www.heforshe.org ranks Rwanda as the highest commitment leader, based upon population, for gender equality.

Second, “boys will be boys” is not an acceptable stance to take regarding misogyny and sexism. The cliché permits the turn of a blind eye where gender-based violence (GBV)–sexual harassment, bullying, stalking, assault, etc.–are concerned. Whether UN peacekeepers or college students, the combination of these actions, and a lackadaisical response from citizens and law enforcement, creates a culture where violence against women is not considered taboo. Brock Turner caught in the act and convicted of sexual assault, and released within three months of his six-month sentence. Survivors of sexual assault, regardless of gender, endure treatment as guilty of contributing to their assault: ‘what were you wearing’ or ‘why did you walk alone’, more often than the perpetrator is innocent of committing assault; therefore, most go unreported. Jill Flipovic presents rape and sexual assault as “both a crime and tool for social control.” She believes sexual assault is the result of a systemic problem of misogynistic behavior, rooted in the debasement of women by men and accepted by the by-standing status quo.

Rape and sexual assault will continue as a weapon and means of control until perceptions about sexism and misogyny change, and the creation and implementation of laws protect the survivors rather than the attacker. In Malawi, the government plans to increase the number of reported GBV by “setting up a mechanism… [that] will strengthen the 300-community based victim support units and build their capacity to handle cases in coordination with law enforcers and judiciary.” Male heads of state, university presidents, and business leadership possess a unique opportunity of deconstructing structural violence and reconstructing institutional, gender equal framework by employing IMPACT 10x10x10 top-down engagement strategy.

The first seven female pilot officers of the Colombian Air Force against a T-34. Source: Aviatrix Aviatrix, Creative Commons.

Third, look for the glass ceiling to be broken through the removal of economic and labor barriers. Tennis leads the way in pay equality due to the persistent advocacy of Billie Jean King and Venus Williams. American Bessie Coleman was the first black female pilot; two weeks ago, First Officer Dawn Cook and Captain Stephanie Johnson made history as the first black pilots to command the cockpit at the same time. In addition, Soudaphone and Phinanong of Laos, made aviation history as the first female pilots.

Nathaniel Parish Flannery writes, “one in 4,000” of the world’s largest companies have a seat for women on their boards. Prime Minister of Iceland Bjani Benediktsson stated, “When it is no longer news to have women in leading position, then—and only then—will we have gender parity.” According to the glass-ceiling index, Iceland is the best nation in the world to work, leading the way in gender equality. Over the course of five years, Scandinavian countries have positioned in the top five, whereas the United States ranked 20^th, seven below the average. On Tuesday, the fearless girl representing gender inequality and pay disparity became an addition to the bull on Wall Street.

For more nearly 400 years, the persistence of women has pushed back the bounds of patriarchy, which interrupted our growth, forced us to take a backseat on policy and agenda issues regarding our personhood, seeking our demure silence and acceptance. Today, in 2017, given the persistent history, current global political climate, and subsequent rise of global solidarity, the collective SHE has heard the warnings, ignored the explanations, and raised a resistance.

The Death Penalty: Violation of the Right to Life

picture of death penalty protest — Source: Maryland GovPics, Creative Commons.

The most fundamental human right is the right to life as recognized in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The denial of the right to life, through the practice of capital punishment, is internationally condemned with nearly two-thirds of countries worldwide banning the death penalty in law or in practice. The United States is a notable outlier as the only member of the G8, one of three members of the G20, and the only Western country to still practice capital punishment. This is deeply problematic for several reasons: the practice does not deter or reduce crime, disproportionately targets poor and disabled minorities, and results in the sentencing of innocent people approximately 4.1% of the time.

The local rate of death penalty cases is alarming. According to Harvard Law’s Fair Punishment Project, 16 counties of the total 3,142 in the nation were listed as outliers, including Jefferson and Mobile counties in Alabama. The study states that Jefferson County “sent more criminal defendants to death row between 2010 and 2015 than almost every other county in the nation.” As one of thirty-one states to still have the death penalty, Alabama is the only one that allows sentencing to capital punishment with a non-unanimous vote. Additionally, Alabama is the only state allowing judges to override a jury’s conclusion to recommend life without parole. Kent Faulk reports defendants in all five Jefferson County death penalty cases are black, received non-unanimous verdicts—two of which were overturned by a judge, and one third of the defendants had “intellectual disability, severe mental illness, or brain damage.”

No Justice without Life — Source: World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Creative Commons.

Racial discrimination is a continuing problem in America’s criminal justice system, and results in the state-sponsored deaths of minorities. Recent studies have found that courts are more likely to sentence a defendant to death if they murder a white person over any other race. A study in North Carolina found that the likelihood of obtaining the death sentence increased by nearly four times if the victim was white. In Louisiana, the odds of being sentenced to death for the murder of a white victim is 97% higher than for the murder of a black victim. Additionally, a Connecticut study found that minorities who kill whites are given the death penalty at higher rates than minorities who kill minorities. Some of this discrimination may be a consequence of the racial empathy gap—the finding that people automatically assume that African-Americans feel less pain than whites.

Anthony Ray Hinton was sentenced to Alabama’s death row, recently found innocent, and freed from after nearly thirty years. Hinton, released in 2015, gave his testimony of deep racial injustice of Alabama’s criminal justice system: “[The lieutenant] said, ‘I don’t care whether you did it or you don’t… but you gonna be convicted for it. And you know why? … You got a white man. They say you shot him. Gonna have a white D.A. We gonna have a white judge. You gonna have a white jury more than likely. All of that spell conviction, conviction, conviction.’” When new evidence found Hinton innocent, he was released without any compensation, assistance program, or even a bus ticket. This, perhaps, is a more egregious wrong than the decades-long imprisonment itself. Exonerated prisoners find themselves in a changed world with no shelter, no job, and often no family. Former prisoners require mental, physical, and emotional help to successfully adjust to the world outside prison, but never receive it. In a country that declares itself to be a global leader of human rights, violations like these are unacceptable.

a picture of sad jailed prisoners — Jailed prisoners. Source: Ancho, Creative Commons.

American values list freedom, individualism, and equality– yet we simultaneously deny the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security of person to hundreds of criminal defendants per year. International human rights treaties like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Kyoto Protocol, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) remain unsigned by the United States, despite claims of upholding and honoring them. The US is the only member state of the United Nations other than Somalia that has not ratified the UNCRC, and one of only seven who have not ratified CEDAW. So far, only eighteen US states and the District of Colombia have abolished the death penalty; that number can only increase with action and engagement by citizens. Amnesty International states, “The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights.”

This week, the Alabama House of Representative will vote on a bill to prohibit judicial override of jury recommendations against the death sentence. This power of judicial override, prohibited in all capital murder cases except in Alabama, has occurred 112 times– 101 of which gave a death sentence. If you feel strongly about this bill, contact your representatives using this link.

Additional Resources:

Bryan Stevenson – Just Mercy and Equal Justice Initiative

Michelle Alexander

Ava DuVernay

Angela Davis

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Southern Poverty Law Center