Recap: A Conversation with Dr. Harriet Washington

Last Thursday, Dr. Harriet Washington  conducted a seminar with the UAB Institute for Human Rights where she discussed the contents of her book, Medical Apartheid. Dr. Washington has been the recipient of the American Library Association Black Caucus Non-Fiction Award and currently teaches bioethics at Columbia University. The seminar was moderated by Dr. Kecia Thomas, the Dean of UAB’s College of Arts and Sciences.

Cover of Washington’s book. Source: Yahoo Images

In the discussion, Dr. Washington highlighted several aspects of medical treatment of black people that previously went unnoticed. Her motivation for her highly popular book, Medical Apartheid, was a file she discovered in the 1980s during her job at a hospital. At that time, talking about diversity was a taboo thing. But as she was working one day, she came across an old filing cabinet with patient files from the 1970s of people who needed kidneys. As she began sifting through the files, Dr. Washington analyzed the social profiles of those patients and observed a key difference — the files of ethnically white people were much thinner than that of black people. That was a precursor to her next discovery–one of the files of a black person had the word “Negro” underlined, and the health plan laid out was that of imminent demise, not for healthcare. In that moment, Dr. Washington grew acutely aware of racial plights within the healthcare system and of the inferior care that was being offered to marginalized communities. 

In 2001, she was invited to an international conference on human medicine in Germany, where the only discussion of the mistreatment of African Americans in medicine was the Tuskegee crisis. This claim was boldly made by the international community because there were no other major records of such mistreatment in healthcare. In that moment, Dr. Washington decided to write Medical Apartheid  “so no one can decline this ever happened in history.”

Why use “apartheid”?

According to Dr. Washington, that is precisely what her discovery is. Dr. Harold Freeman, a cancer surgeon in New York, found in 1990 that the men of Harlem, NY had medical profiles similar to the men of Bangladesh. Such a finding is shocking and very disturbing, but Ms. Washington described internalizing his information as an indication of a foundation that enables such actions to be discoverable. The reason why these medical disparities translate to an apartheid is because we have highly effective historical policies that have and continue to succeed in making us “two different Americas.” 

While this history and factual information has been ignored for too long, people seem receptive to this information and have been utilizing the history in an attempt to correct it. That is why calling the movement what it is — an apartheid — and doing everything in one’s power, be it from the capacity of an educator or a student, use the information to actually influence a change. 

Vaccine Hesitancy 

Dr. Thomas shifted the focus of the conversation towards the COVID-19 pandemic and the speculations of vaccine hesitancy among black people being a consequence of the Tuskegee Scandal, an event where black people were given a placebo of the cure for syphilis. This myth, however, was quickly busted by Dr. Washington who first stated blatantly that the American healthcare system is untrustworthy, so blaming people for being untrustworthy of it is unfair to do. She continued to quote a study that founded that black people who have never heard of the Tuskegee scandal are more scared of vaccines than those who are familiar with the medical injustice; thus blaming Tuskegee, according to Dr. Washington, is a form of laziness. Rather than speculate on behalf of black people, and people of color (POC) in general, Dr. Washington’s suggestion is to ask and clarify why POC are less likely to participate in clinical trials. Her own research indicates that prioritizing an elderly age group in such trials is synonymous to penalizing POC, for POC tend to be younger populations while white people have a larger older population. The solution to this is creating more nuanced policies that take into consideration restrictions like not having insurance or limited internet access. 

Harriet A. Washington. Source: Yahoo Images

Ethics and Informed Consent

Another area of medicine Dr. Washington specializes in is the ethics of clinical trials and the common violations of informed consent that researchers often engage in. Fraud and deceiving POC in trials is not a new concept; it happened in the Tuskegee trials and continues to happen, unfortunately. In 2006, only black people were given artificial blood to see if they would still heal from the disease treatment being tested; the subjects died of heart attacks because of this deception. While we know placebos exist in clinical trials, administering the placebo to a select group of people rather than across the tested subjects, irrespective of race, is something which is unethical and illegal. 

Actions to Take 

First, we must be willing to eradicate our generations of ignorance towards people of color, especially black populations, starting with valuing their lives. Having open conversations such as the one had with Dr. Washington is a great place to start because the only thing that is being presented is facts and evidence corroborating a painful yet honest history of medical apartheid. And implementing the information we learn in our research and education is one step we can all take to put an end to this apartheid. The second thing anyone can do is openly advocate for nuanced policies that are socially and economically aware of the implications and disadvantages current policies present to diverse populations. Urging our public servants to pay attention and take action against healthcare injustices is yet another change we can bring forward amid the pandemic, a time that has taught our global community the immense need for a united front against injustices.

Gun Violence and Human Rights – An Event Recap

Bullet casings and crime scene tape
Source: Upsplash

On Wednesday, September 29, the Institute for Human Rights at UAB welcomed Katie White, UAB Masters of Public Health student, to the Social Justice Café. Katie facilitated a discussion on gun violence and human rights.

Katie began by sharing that her research on gun violence in Birmingham emphasizes the intersections with public health and public health responsiveness. Katie shared statistical data on national rates of gun violence as well as in the state of Alabama. In the United States, there are an estimated 393 million guns — more guns than humans. Gun violence accounted for 961 deaths in the state of Alabama in 2020. The state of Alabama has the 5th highest death rate nationally, and there was a 15% increase in gun related homicides from 2010 to 2019.

Katie also discussed how the city of Birmingham is addressing the growing trend of gun related homicides. Birmingham has invested in various forms of technology such as; ShotSpotter, Predictive Policing, and a state-of-the-art real time crime center. The implementation of new technology is a step in the right direction, according to Katie; however, technology can be flawed and subject to bias and discrimination, especially against People of Color and people living in underserved communities. Additionally, the merger of traditional police work with new technology is inherently reactionary, creating a strong response whether than creating a strong deterrent.

Social Justice Café participants asked questions and shared their personal opinions. One participant asked Katie if she had any suggestions on how to minimize gun related homicides in the Birmingham. Based on her research, Katie suggests a three-point plan beginning with the implementation of economic development within disadvantaged communities that have historically lacked social mobility and access to opportunities. Next, Katie suggested the implementation of “Hospital Based Gun Violence Intervention (HBCVI).” HBCVI is initiated when a gunshot victim is admitted into a medical facility. Katie shared that “people who are most likely to commit gun violence are often likely to become victims of gun violence.” HBCVI is a proactive policy used to break the cyclical nature of gun violence. The victim will be offered social assistance in the form of social workers and a police officer. It will be the responsibility of the police officer to gather obtain information to locate the perpetrator of violence. It will be the responsibility of the social worker to administer much needed support to the victim as they journey down the road to physical and mental recovery. The implementation of HBGVI could solve a plethora of social injustices. The neglect experienced in underserved communities tends to manifest in the form of violence and mental health deterioration. HBGVI can address violence within underserved communities, as well as administer much needed mental health support during moments of extreme stress. Finally, Katie suggests the City of Birmingham create conflict resolution courses to be taught within communities as well as in the classroom. Arming citizens with healthy conflict resolution skills, instead of firearms, will better prepare citizens to avoid conflict.

After a robust discussion, varying in topics ranging from public health initiatives to community building, Katie offered a final sentiment: “Gun violence is a complex issue and requires a complex solution.” It is the responsibility of everyone to prioritize institutional response to the escalating threat of gun violence.

Thank you, Katie White and thank you everyone who participated in this wonderful discussion. Our next Social Justice Café will be held on Wednesday, October 13, and we will be discussing vaccine mandates and human rights with Dr. Suzanne Judd. Everyone is welcome. Register here!

To see more upcoming events hosted by the Institute for Human Rights at UAB, please visit our events page here.

Human Rights and Climate Change – An Event Recap

Earth
Source: Creative Commons

On Wednesday, September 15, the Institute for Human Rights at UAB welcomed Dr. Courtney Andrews, Program Manager for the Institute for Human Rights and UAB Adjunct Professor of Anthropology, and Dr. Julie Price, UAB Assistant Professor of Public Health, to the Social Justice Café. Dr. Andrews and Dr. Price facilitated a discussion entitled “Human Rights and Climate Change.”

Dr. Andrews began by defining climate change and introducing the audience to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report. The report offers the most conclusive evidence to date that humans have contributed significantly towards the current state of climate change. Climate change has increased occurrences of drought, heavy rain, tropical cyclones, and wildfires in nearly every region of the world. A sense of urgency was conveyed during the Social Justice Café when Dr. Andrews stated global warming will continue to worsen unless we [society] make collective efforts to prioritize ending climate change. According to the IPCC, the global production of greenhouse gas must reach a net zero by 2050 to effectively minimize climate change damages. Dr. Andrews then stated climate change will affect all regions but, we should not expect climate change to affect all regions equally. The most severe impact will be on those already most vulnerable due to poverty, governmental instability, and lack of educational opportunities. Dr. Andrews acknowledged that “those hit the hardest by climate change are the people that have contributed the least to climate change.” The challenges associated with climate change transcend generations by limiting our sustainability options.

Dr. Price, an expert in sustainability, shared with the Social Justice Café audience that the loss of biodiversity caused by climate change will have a lasting effect on society. Dr. Price offered sustainability suggestions to include reduction of human emissions and to start growing crops in untraditional geographical areas. According to Dr. Price, the foundation of sustainability is to “evaluate the whole picture and consider the social and environmental impact of our decisions.” Following Dr. Price’s introduction to sustainability, a Social Justice Café participant asked, “how does climate change violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?” Dr. Andrews answered the question by circle back to her earlier point that unstable societies are hit the hardest by climate change because of a lack in resource and access. The lack of resource and access afforded to these countries is a violation of their human rights. Dr. Price then pointed out that “paying for air conditioning is an energy burden. When you already have people struggling for necessities, tensions will rise and increase the potential for neglect in the event of natural disaster.” Also, Dr. Price notes that in the event of natural disaster, caused by climate change, “the ability to evacuate is not afforded to the most vulnerable of society.” It is vital to consider that there are countries that do not have social safety nets to provide care for their people amid tragedy and chaos. Dr. Andrews then added context by drawing a direct connection to the current events occurring in Louisiana, following Hurricane Ida. If people were able to leave their homes, to avoid the hurricane, “what will those people return to?” In conclusion, Dr. Andrews stated that we must “reshape public sentiment surrounding climate change.” In addition to legislative action, public outcry has the power to positively impact climate change.

Thank you, Dr. Andrews and Dr. Price and thank you everyone who participated in this eye-opening discussion. The Institute for Human Rights at UAB’s next event, “An Evening with Clint Smith,” will take place September 22, 2021, at 5:00 pm (CT). Please join us and bring a friend!  Our next Social Justice Café will be held on Wednesday, September 29, and we will be discussing gun control and human rights.

To see more upcoming events hosted by the Institute for Human Rights at UAB, please visit our events page here.

 

“Pursuing Justice with Love and Power”: A Conversation with Brittany Packett Cunningham

a piece of street art from a George Floyd protest
Justice and Love. Source: Renoir Gaither. Creative Commons.

On Tuesday April 6th, the Institute for Human Rights at UAB welcomed acclaimed author and activist Brittany Packnett Cunningham to speak. Brittany facilitated a conversation entitled “Pursuing Justice with Love and Power.”  The discussion was moderated by IHR graduate assistant Jaylah Cosby and IHR intern Faiza Mawani.

Brittany began with discussing her inspiration for the phrase “love and power.” The phrase was actually borrowed from a lesser known piece of writing by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It can be utilized in word format or in a series of emojis: the heart emoji to represent love and the fist emoji to represent power. Love and power are conceived as two opposites. For example, love is perceived as soft whereas power is perceived as intense. However, Brittany emphasizes the importance of the two together. Our power can be informed with our love. This can be seen in a political landscape with loving policies that empower people where they are.

Brittany then pivots the conversation to discuss love and power in the context of community building. Community building begins first by being in and participating in the community. She describes 2014 as a pivotal turning point in American history and in her personal history. With 2014 came the protests in Ferguson where young people protected the American people’s right to protest. Communities showed their love for themselves and for others by standing up to the injustices in local, national, and international communities. Love is the root of protests. Brittany states, “We don’t need to know the people who have died by police violence to love them.” To actualize what love looks like, it is required to be in community with people.

When asked about whether the term “community” can mean an integrated community or a homogenous community, Brittany confirmed that both are necessary in making sense of our racial identity in the world. Affinity spaces allow for safety and comfort in what we know and understand. Finding community in those affinity spaces often provides the opportunity to find community in multicultural spaces. While working towards that multicultural community can be difficult and uncomfortable, that safe space from the homogenous group is still there at the end of the day. In answering this question, Brittany emphasizes the need to push for integrated spaces while also understanding the simultaneous need for affinity spaces.

In the time of COVID-19, digitalization has become ever more present in all spaces an advocacy is no exception. Brittany acknowledges how digital spaces have somehow made it easier to work as an activist. She describes digitalization as another tool in the toolbox that works toward justice. It changes the way people can view work, life, and accessibility. However, the digitalization of life and work has also allowed misinformation to flourish. Brittany’s example of the dangers of misinformation is with voter suppression. The most effective form of voter suppression is to convince voters to stay home by encouraging them to believe that their vote doesn’t count. Similarly, Brittany warns against performative digital advocacy. If an Instagram post is being created with the sole purpose of gaining followers, this is an example of performative digital advocacy. Instead, advocacy posts should encourage action and therefore be productive. Most importantly, digital advocacy must amplify the folks most affected by the issue whenever possible.

A question from the audience inspired Brittany to discuss the intersection between religious faith and social justice. In response, Brittany stated, “I identify as political not in spite of my faith but because of it.” Brittany speaks from the perspective of a Christian and highlighted many of the issues modern Christianity has.

The conversation began to orient towards the Derek Chauvin case, which was ongoing at the time of the event, and policing in the United States. Brittany admitted to not watching the trial but looking at the coverage after the fact. Her primary reason for doing so is an understanding that nothing in the Derek Chauvin trial will bring back George Floyd. She highlights the important difference between justice and accountability in this section of the conversation. Justice would be an anonymous, alive, George Floyd sitting with his family and friends and living his life. That will never happen due to the actions of Derek Chauvin. However, Chauvin can be held accountable for his actions. When discussing the trial, Brittany states how she hopes that from the spectacle that is the trial, people are able to understand that police officers should never be expected or allowed to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

Brittany’s perspective on policing in the United States is that it needs to cease to exist how it is. She cites the “abolitionist tradition” of the United States. The people who fought against the abolition of slavery often argued the economics of slavery and the reliance the United States had on it, a similar argument we see occurring now when discussing police systems. Brittany asks the audience that if reimagining what public safety looks life scares you, to ask yourself where you would have stood on the abolition of slavery. “The safest communities,” Brittany states, “are not those with the most cops, both those with the most resources. Period.”

Brittany ended the conversation with advice on how to “get on the train” of activism. She says that the most important things to do are to listen, learn, and act but acknowledges that the temptation in activism is to default to whichever of those three is your are comfortable with, which is often “learn.” Brittany explains that it is easy to fall into the trap of sitting in the corner of your house, reading the literature and listening the people but never exiting to help build the communities and act. Learning is only half of the work. With such a digitalized world, there is an opportunity to learn and listen from the people we are the least like. Brittany advises to write down what gives you a privilege and an advantage in the world and follow the people who do not have your privileges. She also advises to act locally, highlighting the fact that you do not have to travel to another place to be an activist. “Link up with the organizations in your community,” Brittany advises, “and that is how we get to work.”

Biden’s Human Rights Agenda – An Event Recap

Joe Biden
Source: Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons.

On Tuesday, February 2, the Institute for Human Rights at UAB welcomed Dr. Robert Blanton, Professor and Chair of the Political Science and Public Administration Department at UAB, to our second Social Justice Café of the semester. Dr. Blanton facilitated a discussion entitled “Biden’s Human Rights Agenda.”

Dr. Blanton initiated the conversation by stating that the 2020 election of Joe Biden is a “welcomed return to hypocrisy [as it pertains to human rights in the United States].” The return to hypocrisy represents the reality of political figures making promises, and then failing to turn those promises into human rights policy. The very notion that President Biden has presented a Human Rights Agenda is a staunch contrast when compared to his predecessor’s lack of clear and defined Human Rights protective goals. Dr. Blanton suggested that President Donald Trump was not a hypocrite in regard to his approach to Human Rights. President Trump simply didn’t make attempts to address Human Rights violations domestically or internationally.

In an interview with the New York Times, then former Vice-President Joe Biden stated, “When I am president human rights will at the core of US foreign policy”. Dr. Blanton finds the President’s continued foreign policy rhetoric surrounding international and domestic issues to be interesting, and he cautioned participants to pay close attention to how human rights violations will be addressed within President Biden’s first one hundred days in office. Following this statement participants began discussing specific Executive Orders signed by President Biden that are innately Human Rights focused. Participants discussed the outcome of the Bostock Case and how President Biden’s decision to reinforce this Supreme Court decision with an Executive Order is a promising sign of the President’s commitment to preserving Human and Civil Rights. The Bostock Case prohibited employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Participants then suggested other topics they felt needed further attention from the Biden Administration, such as systemic racism, xenophobia, and COVID-19 response.

Moving forward, one participant was curious if “legislation would be passed in relation to women’s rights to reproductive health?” This discussion centered around how we classify issues within the United States and how this classification affects the seriousness and legitimacy of an issue. The participants came to the conclusion that women’s reproductive rights could potentially receive more congressional and national support if it is framed as a domestic and international health issue rather than a human rights issue. Dr. Blanton was adamant that the manner in which we categorize issues is a major factor in whether or not those issues receive solutions.

When further discussing how policy is enacted within the United States, one participant noted that “local cities and NGO’s often make larger impacts in the fight for social justice. How important is it that we [American citizens] have a Presidential administration?” A large majority of participants appreciated this question; however, they agreed that within the confines of the United States Constitution the continued election of an executive president is necessary to the maintenance of the country as a whole. Some felt the issue of private prison regulation would be best handled by the executive office. In response Dr. Blanton stated, “Private prisons exhibit overt violations of human rights” and that he did not disagree that private prison regulation should have a place within President Biden’s Human Rights Agenda.

In his final remarks, Dr. Blanton offered this quote: “Presidents are victims of events.” His point was that Joe Biden’s presidency will be governed according to the trials and complications his administration will unquestionably face within the next four years. President Biden’s administration will have to make a conscious effort to not allow the events of the world to overshadow their Human Rights Agenda.

Thank you, Dr. Blanton, and thank you everyone who participated in this stimulating discussion.

To see more upcoming events hosted by the Institute for Human Rights at UAB, please visit our events page here.

 

Human Rights in Times of COVID-19: Public Safety vs. Individual Liberty

The flyer for the webinar with pictures of the three panelists

The tension between the authority of governments to impede on individual rights in times of public emergencies and the implications for human rights is a topic that has come into focus as the world reels from the impacts of COVID-19. On Thursday, May 21, the Institute for Human Rights hosted its first webinar on Human Rights in Times of Covid-19, which focused on how we navigate this tension between public safety and individual liberty. Our panelists included Dr. Kathryn Morgan, the Director of the African American Studies Program at UAB and an expert in civil rights, race, and criminal justice policy, Dr. Natasha Zaretsky, a Professor of History at UAB who focuses on contemporary U.S. culture and intersecting histories of women, gender, and families, and Dr. Robert Blanton, the Chair of Political Science and Public Administration at UAB who specializes in international human rights with a focus on human trafficking. We are grateful to our panelists for taking the time to share their expertise on this topic as we navigate this difficult time, and we’re grateful to the UAB/IHR community for your interest and engagement. If you missed the webinar and would like to watch it in its entirety you can find it here. Below is a recap of the event. 

Dr. Morgan focused on the implications of this tension for civil rights in the U.S., reminding us that governments do have the authority and the responsibility during a pandemic to impose restrictions on certain rights afforded by the Constitution in order to keep the most people safe. However, as we are seeing, this is not a cut and dry issue, and there is a lot of disagreement over how to keep people safe and keep the economy functioning. To this end, she mentioned three major concerns: one, what kind of restrictions will be put in place?, two, how long will this go on?, and three, how will these measures be enforced? She also mentioned the variable impact these restrictions and the virus itself will have on different sectors of the population, pointing out how this virus is disproportionately affecting black and brown people who are dying at much higher rates than white people. Dr. Morgan also expressed concern over how federal and state responses to the virus will impact people with disabilities, suggesting that times like this often exacerbate discrimination against these vulnerable populations. 

“When we look at service workers. When we look at people who are in essential positions that help to keep society running, even in a shutdown. Many of those people are from marginalized groups. They are exposed to conditions that really exacerbate the problems of exposure to the coronavirus.”

Dr. Zaretsky discussed the way that partisan division and hostility are shaping this conversation around individual liberties and public health, comparing it to the debate over vaccinations in the U.S. On the one hand, people want and need to work, but at the same time, we see that social distancing and work from home measures are effective in slowing the spread of the virus. And while this seems like a particularly loud and divisive situation, one that the Trump administration is actively inciting, Dr. Zaretsky reminded us that the media is proliferating the opinions at the polar ends of the spectrum, which likely do not represent the views of most Americans. While lockdown protestors are demanding that the economy be reopened so that they can get haircuts and pedicures, it doesn’t seem like they’re considering that this requires other people to risk exposure to the virus so that they can perform these services. What is important to remember is how interconnected we all are. However, in the absence of no comprehensive national plan to end the pandemic, the rampant spread of misinformation, and the politicization of masks and other safety measures, we are left with division and hostility rather than a sense of unity toward a common goal of resolving this crisis. 

“In the context of this pandemic, there is no such thing as individual liberty…it is bringing into view how profoundly interconnected we all are.”

Dr. Blanton spoke of how this tension is playing out on the global stage and how different nations are regarding their human rights commitments during this time. In balancing the human rights with the public good, international law provides a set of standards that calls for restrictions to be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory in nature. Of course restrictions on the freedom from things like arbitrary imprisonment or torture should never be lifted under any circumstances. However, Dr. Blanton mentioned what he called “coronavirus coups” happening in places like Hungary, where democratically-elected presidents are using the pandemic to suspend elections and appointment themselves rulers for an indefinite period of time. Other governments have used the pandemic to undermine civil society by using emergency powers to detain journalists and activists and health care workers who criticize the government. In moving forward, Dr. Blanton stressed that the “protection of human rights should not be viewed as an impediment to handling the crisis so much as an essential component of an effective response.”

“Several countries have used the pandemic as an excuse to undermine the rule of law or undermine democratic processes.” 

Community questions

We were pleased to have so much engagement from community members who sent in questions on Facebook for our panelists to address. Here are some of the questions and the responses: 

Would you say now is a good time for the U.S. to join the United Nations in guaranteeing health care and food as positive human rights? 

Dr. Blanton responded to this by saying that this crisis has brought into focus the mediocre job our country does in providing the positive rights, including health care. This has shown the weakness in our existing power structure in that the federal government is pushing to centralize power around the pandemic but at the same time is not able or is not willing to provide the goods and services that states need to combat the virus. He said the U.S. is unusual in its position on not identifying healthcare as a human right, though this is clearly something that needs to change.

Dr. Zaretsky also touched on how this crisis has exposed and exacerbated the pitfalls of the health care system, expressing a cautious optimism that this may serve as an impetus to reframe the healthcare debate in a way that makes forging comprehensive and long-term policy changes possible. Again, this is an example of how the extreme positions have been foregrounded and the wants and needs of the majority go unaccounted for. But there is no denying anymore that changes must be made going forward. 

What about labor rights? They are always tennis to non-existent in the U.S., but especially hard-hit right now as the U.S. and other countries like them slide further under the rug, risking worker safety while they’re at it as part of their coronavirus response. 

In addition to the weakness of our labor unions in the U.S., we fall behind other developed countries in terms of wage levels and working conditions. The crisis is bringing a lot of attention to that, but Dr. Blanton is not terribly optimistic that anything will come of it. The problem is that this requires hefty structural change, not just short-term attention. Dr. Zaretsky pointed out that there have been several labor uprisings during all this – at Amazon and Instacart for example – but these don’t get a whole lot of attention in the media. The focus is largely on militia groups storming the capitols, and the concerns of workers are getting lost in the shuffle. 

It’s easy to think of the two sides during this pandemic as people who resent not being able to shop or eat versus people who are afraid that they will die, but how do you draw the line between what different groups want and how do you decide which voices are listened to? How can a government make both sides feel that they’re being heard? Is there a way to defuse this resentment? 

A big part of this problem, according to Dr. Zaretsky, is that the Trump administration is ratcheting up this animosity by using divisive rhetoric rather than trying to rally people around a common cause. Trump is pitching this as a populist class struggle, and this narrative is dominating the media coverage. This is unfortunate because while there are differences in how Republicans and Democrats think this needs to be handled, the majority of Americans on both sides are in agreement about the need to take the virus seriously and are trying to do what they can to stop the spread. 

We are grateful to our panelists and to all the community members who joined us for the webinar. If you missed the event, you can check out the recording on our Facebook page. 

Outside the Frame: Where is the Native Story in American Art?

Painting of a green landscape with the sun shining down.
Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania. Source: The Met, Creative Commons

On Monday, March 9th, the Institute for Human Rights co-sponsored an event alongside College of Arts & Sciences and Abroms-Engel Institute for the Visual Arts (AEIVA) to present a panel discussion with Dr. Deidra Suwanee Dees (Director/Tribal Archivist – Poarch Band of Creek Indians), Dr. Tina Kempin Reuter (Director – Institute for Human Rights, UAB), Oakleigh Pinson (Guest Co-Curator – Focus IV Exhibition, AEIVA), and moderator John Fields (Senior Director – AEIVA). During their discussion, they addressed the Native erasure from American art and pathways to greater representation.

The discussion began with mention of Manifest Destiny, which were the events that led to the removal of Natives throughout North America. This effort was influenced by the ‘doctrine of discovery’ that painted non-Christians as pagans and, thus, targets of oppression. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 affected tribes throughout the Southeast, namely the Poarch Creek Indians who are the only federally recognized Native tribe in the state of Alabama.

Thus, many works of art in U.S. museums do not include depictions of Natives. In contrast, many paintings of the American frontier include landscapes without people, although sometimes incorporating wildlife, which conveys the message that this land was simply there for the taking. These portrayals also hide behind the altered and destroyed scared sites that were once home to millions of Natives.

Woman with a ceremonial indigenous dress presents artwork as onlookers listen.
Dr. Dees presenting art to the audience. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights

Such treatment has resulted in harsh living conditions where nearly a quarter of the U.S. Native population reside on tribal lands riddled with unemployment, inadequate housing, and limited facilities. These conditions serve as a harvest ground for poor access to resources that translate to health disparities related to heart disease, suicide, tuberculosis, etc. Native women are particularly at-risk in these harsh conditions because thousands every year go missing or are found murdered, thus inspiring the #AmINext awareness campaign in Canada.

During the Q&A segment, an audience member asked if this type of art could be considered propaganda. Dr. Dees suggested that suppression of art is a red flag because it limits expression, although she then claimed that art can also be created to facilitate social change. The conversation then evolved into a discussion about film depictions of Natives and the involvement of indigenous peoples in the United Nations. These sentiments centered on the general theme that Native representation is not only missing in art but also popular culture and politics.

Ultimately, the erasure of Native perspectives whitewashes what is to be told and understood. As such, it is imperative these wrongs are corrected through fair representation of Natives in the media and political arena. Recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples not only brings us closer to the full realization of human rights but also prevents history from painting with a broad brush.

Art for Human Rights: The For Freedoms Congress

FFCon Header. Source: For Freedoms

As the crowd chanted the words “Reactionary? No, visionary” in synchronization, we could envision the power of community and our passion to create change. Our minds were synced in for a collective purpose and hearts full of warmth and unity. This was at the first For Freedoms Congress in Los Angeles, California at the beginning of March earlier this year. I had the incredible opportunity to attend and bring back home a plethora of inspiration, information, and ideas on using art as a tool for activism.

What is For Freedoms?

For Freedoms is an artist-run platform for civic engagement, discourse, and direct action for artists in the U.S. inspired by American artist Norman Rockwell’s paintings of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear—For Freedoms uses art to encourage and deepen public explorations of freedom in the 21st century. Their belief is to use art as a vehicle for participation to deepen public discussions on civic issues through non-partisan programming throughout the country. Hank Willis Thomas, the cofounder of For Freedoms says that “The people who make up our country’s creative fabric have the collective influence to affect change. Right now, we have a lot of non-creative people shaping public policy, and a lot of creative individuals who haven’t or don’t know how to step up. For Freedoms exists as an access point to magnify, strengthen, and perpetuate the civic influence of creatives and institutions nationwide.”

About the Congress

The For Freedoms Congress gathered delegates from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to come together to share their mutual passion of using art as a tool for advocacy and activism. We were honored and proud to represent the Institute for Human Rights, UAB, and the state of Alabama at this nationwide platform. The Congress spanned over three days in the historic city of Los Angeles to celebrate its role as the birthplace and driver of many important artistic-led cultural movements over the decades. The use of remarkable locations such as the Museum of Contemporary Art, Japanese American National Museum, and the Hammer Museum added to the artistic aura of the conference and gave us an opportunity to explore these exciting places.

Over the course of the conference, we got to attend a number of artist-led planning sessions, creative workshops, art activations, and performances on topics ranging from refugee rights to gun violence, indigenous rights to gender equality, and the criminal injustice system to public art policies. In addition, featured townhalls were held on each of the four freedoms that sparked constructive dialogue between the participants.

The 50 State Photo. Source: Ural Garrett, FFCon

Culture, Art, and Advocacy

The foundation of all the discussions and sessions at the Congress lies on one fact: culture is a human right. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” To make this right a reality, activists, advocates, and cultural institutions from around the country came together to share their ideas, foster collaboration, and to create a platform for civic engagement. They committed to keep playing their part in their respective communities to help make this right a reality for all through public action and commitment to the American values of equality, individualism, and pragmatism.

We need to make sure that cultural and social groups are able to express themselves and exercise their right to art in addition to other human rights. The right to art suggests that it should be accessible to everyone and is synonymous with free speech and self-expression. It goes back to having the freedom to speak up for one’s own self, to have representation, and to practice religion and cultural ways free from any fear or want.

Art is a powerful tool to bring communities together and it speaks to people, which is why it can be used in all kinds of fields to foster equity, inclusion, and justice in society. For example, an important aspect that is often overlooked is the importance of art education and its access in our education system. Art education fosters social development, provides a creative outlet, enhances academic performance and intellectual development, and promotes out-of-the-box thinking for students. Brett Cook, an interdisciplinary artist and educator, led a dialogue on community and collaboration to explain how arts-integrated pedagogy can cause healing and tell stories that reinvent representation. He used The Flower of Praxis as the basic model to foster socially engaged art practices with a focus on art education for collaborative outcomes. It starts with preparing the soil by reflecting on personal experiences and moves through the leaves of connecting with others, seeking new understandings, generating critical questions, and critical analysis to grow into the flower of informed action. The process keeps going by reflection influencing action and eventually generates activism and civic engagement.

The Flower of Praxis. Source: Rosa Gonzales, Creative Commons

Making the voices of people more audible by telling their stories through art and narrative can help create a new moral imagination on pressing issues and social injustices. Art can be used to express what human rights mean to a certain group of people. It gives people the right to their own ways and to tell their own stories. The session “Art Stories on Migration” made me realize the potential of art as a tool for advocacy and how it can be used to create a sense of belonging among disoriented populations. It can redefine identity and help answer pressing questions like who belongs to the economy? Who belongs to the healthcare system? Who belongs to the American identity? It can help communities take ownership and build representation in creative ways. The language of visuals activates the aesthetic perceptions of individuals and facilitates a deeper understanding of issues beyond the surface level. Making the stories of refugees and migrants visible through artistic media gives voice to their struggles and highlights their contributions. Responding to the question of suggesting creative activities or solutions in response to the issues of migration, one participant shared their video project in which immigrants re-read the Declaration of Independence to reflect on what those words mean to them, not just historically but also contemporarily. Another delegate suggested using inclusive language and terminology in museums and other public spaces, such as newcomers or people who migrated instead of refugees or immigrants, enslaved people rather than slaves, and First Americans instead of Native Americans. There are also various avenues for advocacy for non-profit organizations and public charities to lobby, advocate, and encourage participation in politics, elections, and other social movements.

One of my favorite sessions at the Congress was the “This is Not a Gun” workshop. It was based on using collective creative activism to highlight the stories of injustices inflicted on the American people at the hands of law and order. Since the year 2000, United States police have “mistaken” at least 38 distinct objects as guns during shootings of a majority of young black American men, none of whom were armed. The participants shaped these mistaken-as-gun objects in clay, giving presence to their form, the human rights violations, and racism prevalent in America today. While carving out these everyday objects like a flashlight, hairbrush, and sandwich, we paid tribute to the victims and had a meaningful conversation around accountability, equity, safety, and social justice in our country. It made us reflect on the racial profiling, police brutality, societal trauma, and the role we can play in addressing these issues by coming together to support our people and our communities.

Me shaping a flashlight out of clay at the workshop. Source: thisisnotagun.com, Creative Commons

The takeaway message from the Congress was that art has the potential to make a difference in the social discourse and to create change through public engagement. The For Freedoms Congress built a collective platform for artists around the nation to stimulate public action on pressing national issues. In the words of For Freedoms delegates,

We are a collective of artists, creatives, and cultural institutions. We believe citizenship is defined by participation, not ideology. We are anti-partisan. We use the power of the arts to drive civic engagement, spur public discourse, and inspire people to participate in our democracy.

Good and Mad: The Political Consequences of Women’s Anger with Rebecca Traister

Book cover - Good and Mad: The Political Consequences of Women's Anger
Source: Yahoo Images

On Tuesday, March 10th the Institute for Human Rights alongside the UAB Department of English and the UAB Department of Political Science and Public Administration welcomed Rebecca Traister, writer-at-large for New York magazine, to present a lecture entitled, “Good and Mad: The Political Consequences of Women’s Anger.” The lecture is a part of the UAB Department of English Alumni Lecture series, a series that invites prominent writers and scholars twice a year to discuss ideas and issues related to the study of English. In this lecture, Traister discussed her inspiration for writing and how she became a writer, women’s anger throughout history, the validity of women’s anger, and how women’s anger can make change in the modern era.

The lecture focused on the consequences of women’s anger, a topic that Traister has extensively written about in her book “Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger,” published in 2018. Traister has also written books entitled “All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation,” published in 2016, and “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” published in 2010, that focus on similar topics. Alongside her books, Traister has been a feminist journalist for 15 years and describes anger to be a significant part of her work. This anger, Traister says, is a reaction to the many inequalities and injustices in the world. Without anger, it would be impossible to be in the line of work she is in. However, Traister describes being unable to be openly angry. She found that expressing her personal rage would undermine the messages she has been so committed to sharing.

Rebecca Traister speaking.
Rebecca Traister speaking. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights.

This changed in 2016 with the election that ultimately resulted in Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States. Traister had covered the Hillary Clinton campaign as a journalist and describes being unsurprised that Clinton had lost but at the same time “shocked to the point of paralysis” that Trump won. She also describes feeling a sense of responsibility for being a part of the demographic that voted for Donald Trump (white, middle aged women) and expresses being unable to think clearly because of her anger. Her husband encouraged her to actively pursue her anger and write about it. In a way, this encouragement permitted her to think about anger very intentionally, prompting her to write her 2018 book.

Traister moved from her personal journey to discuss the historical implications of women’s anger and how history classes often remove this narrative. Traister encouraged the audience to think about what we learned about Rosa Parks from grade school: a stoic, exhausted seamstress who practiced an act of quiet resistance. Traister expands on this well-established narrative of Rosa Parks by reminding the audience of Parks’ other accomplishments as a member of the NAACP and encouraging us to remember Rosa Parks as a woman who participated in conscience political action based in fury. In another example, Abigail Adams is known for saying, “remember the ladies,” in a letter she wrote to her husband John Adams. Traister reminds the audience that in the same letter Adams wrote, “All men would be tyrants if they could” and warned her husband that if the founding fathers did not take women into consideration, “women are determined to ferment a rebellion.” Traister also includes Elizabeth Freeman, or Mum Bett, into the example, a slave who sued for her freedom and was successful, concluding in a landmark case that was influential in the emancipation of slaves in Massachusetts. Not many people in the audience had heard Elizabeth Freeman’s name before. It is relatively common to find furious women at the start of many movements in this country, Traister says. The deliberate depiction of women as quiet and merely supplemental or in the right place at the right time removes the purposeful, furious action that women have partaken in throughout history.

Rebecca Traister event
Rebecca Traister event. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights.

Now why has this become the case? Traister argues that this pattern has occurred because angry women are powerful and powerful women are a danger to the patriarchal society. She proceeds to analyze the many ways that angry women have been portrayed in media and history. The stereotype of angry women is that they are infantile and not worthy of listening to. There are examples of describing high profile, powerful, and angry women as shrill, unhinged, ugly, unnatural and “a crazy aunt.” Traister explains that women’s anger is coded in our minds as unattractive, the opposite of how society perceives an angry white man. The best way to discredit women, Traister states, is to simply show them opening their mouths. However, Traister describes some of anger’s most important roles. It can bring people together by creating a movement around a shared fury. It can encourage people to become involved in politics, inciting political change. Black Lives Matter, Mom’s Demand Action, Black Lives Matter, Brett Kavanaugh protests, Time’s Up, #metoo, and many others were all started by women.

At the end of her lecture, Traister encourages us to think about anger differently, as fuel propelling us forward. She states that a movement is made up of many moments and the movement for full equality has been ongoing for two centuries. Each person must decide whether or not to change the world and should we decide to do so, our anger is what is going to keep us fighting. Traister ends the lecture by giving each audience member the same task: keep going, do not turn back, and stay angry for a long time.

Under the Surface: Navigating Through the Art of Edouard Duval-Carrié

On February 4th, 2020, the Institute for Human Rights, alongside the African American Studies Program, the Department of Art and Art History, the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, and the Department of History hosted a discussion with artist Edouard Duval-Carrié. The event was moderated by Dr. Charly Verstraet of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at UAB. Duval-Carrié and Dr. Verstraet discussed Duval-Carrié’s different works, a large overview of his work, as well as the width of the scope and the diversity of his works. Dr. Verstraet and Duval-Carrié specifically discussed Duval-Carrié’s Indigo Room and his collection of artworks entitled Imagined Landscapes before addressing questions from the audience.

The theme of the night was “Under the Surface,” which was described to have two meanings. The first is to delve into what is hidden and unseen in the world and the second is a representation of silence. These meanings carry over into Duval-Carrié’s work and in his life. Duval-Carrié is based in Miami but was born and raised in Haiti. Much of his work represents his Haitian culture and the relationship between the Caribbean and the United States.

Duval-Carrié speaking about his project.
Duval-Carrié speaking about his project. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights.

The first piece of art presented was Indigo Room. This art installation is a room of blocks, created by local high school students, with a large feminine figure on the ceiling. Duval-Carrié described the piece to be a celebration of the bicentennial of Haiti’s independence as well as to signify the movement of Haitians from Miami to Fort Lauderdale, New York. He worked directly with high school students and asked each one to create a “memory window,” about Haiti. These “memory windows” were encased in resin and placed in the museum alcove. The installation is blue, to represent being underwater. Duval-Carrié stated that he wanted to make sure that as Haitian people arrive to different cities in the United States, the Haitian culture arrives with them as well The figure on the ceiling is the ultimate mother in Haitian culture, representing both the cosmos and water. He described the installation as a mix of the past, religion, and politics. Duval-Carrié also said that in 2014, he and the students who he worked with to create the installation reunited. He described being so impressed at how many of them continued with the arts into their adult lives.

The second discussion point was the collection of artworks entitled Imagined Landscapes. These pieces are re-imagined from the artworks of the Hudson River School, depicting an idealized Caribbean. Duval-Carrié described the Hudson River School paintings as alluring and romantic. While the paintings were beautiful, they forgot to incorporate the humans living on the islands and the suffering they endured. Duval-Carrié’s re-imagining took select Hudson River School paintings and upended them, making the scenery large and mysterious. Most importantly, he adds the culture of the Caribbean and the heartbreak of United States imperialism back into the landscapes.

Duval-Carrié has taken his talent and passion for art to inspire important conversations around the world. He encourages Haitians to be proud of their heritage and their country. He encourages Americans to recognize the way imperialism reshaped entire countries and how those countries are still reeling from its effects. It is important to acknowledge the powerful effects of art in reclaiming culture and sparking conversations and it is vital that we keep those conversations flowing.

Duval-Carrié taking questions from the audience.
Duval-Carrié taking questions from the audience. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights.

If you are interested in learning more about Mr. Edouard Duval-Carrié, you can look at his  webpage where a listing of his current exhibitions can also be found.