The Ukraine Crisis – IHR Event Recap

War continues to embroil Ukraine as Russian forces advance through the country. Putin’s assurances of only attacking military sites are belied by the mounting civilian casualties in Ukraine. Many Ukrainian individuals have picked up arms for the first time, putting up a valiant stand against the aggressors, while other are seeking safety in neighboring countries. The sanctions levied on Russia and their leadership are likely to have an impact on the country, although they have not yet significantly influenced the current Russian offense. There is, however, a constraint in terms of resources for the Russian troops. For more information regarding this issue, visit Dr. Tina Reuter’s blog post for the Institute for Human Right.

In light of these developments, the UAB Institute for Human Rights (IHR) and the UAB Department of Political Science and Public Administration (PSPA) held an expert panel on March 3rd. The conversation was moderated by Dr. Robert Blanton, the Chair of the Department of PSPA at UAB. The panel was comprised of Dr.Tina Kempin Reuter, Director of the UAB IHR and associate professor in the Department of PSPA as well as the Anthropology Department; Dr.George Liber, retired professor from the History Department at UAB; Scotty Colson, coordinator at the Jimmie Hale Mission and Alabama’s Honorary Consul for Ukraine; Dr. Renato Corbetta, associate professor in the Department of PSPA and Director of the UAB International Studies Program; and Dr. Peter Verbeek, associate professor in the Department of Anthropology and Director of the graduate program in Anthropology of Peace and Human Rights. Panelists discussed the past, present, and future of the Ukraine crisis and consideration of the implications for the people of Ukraine, international relations, and world peace.

Graphic for the Ukraine Crisis Event, with a light blue background and white text reading, "Virtual Panel Discussion. The Ukraine Crisis. Implications for Geopolitics and Human Rights."
The Ukraine Crisis Panel Discussion took place on March 3rd, 2022.

Historical Context

Dr. Liber began the conversation by providing a historical background for the current crisis. Ukraine has been an independent country since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and a majority of its people have supported a pro-democratic position including, but not limited to, free elections. Putin, in contrast, leads Russia as an authoritarian dictator, controlling the parliament, courts, and state media. Civil liberties have taken a toll under his leadership as the government goes as far as to reshape public opinion through its influence. Putin has always struggled to recognized Ukraine as an independent state and aims to restore Russia to its former power. Two significant events have led to the recent escalation. The first was the removal of the pro-Russian government from office in 2014, and the subsequent appointment of a more democratic leadership. In response, Russia annexed Crimea with the help of pro-Russian annexationists in Eastern Europe. The conflict between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists created great turmoil at the time. The second event that prompted the recent attack by Russia, according to Dr.Liber, was the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, which signaled to Putin that the US may be hesitant to engage their military forces at the time of conflict.

The Situation on the Ground

Scotty Colson followed this historical summary with a description of the current situation in Ukraine. He recounted his interactions with former participants in the Open World Program, which is a government funded program that offers young Ukrainian leaders the opportunity to travel to the US and exchange ideas on key global issues with their counterparts. Mr.Colson relays the experiences of participants of this program who visited Birmingham and who are currently in the center of the war in Ukraine. One individual, a lawyer who advocates for the democratization of Ukraine, took up an AK47 despite his lack of experience handling firearms. He now mans a barricade in Ukraine after his regular work hours. Another individual that Colson interacted with was an entrepreneur who created programs to help people receive first aid. He is currently one of the leaders in providing emergency care for war torn areas. Another individual stands guard with a machine gun outside an airport. Colson also mentioned that advocates from other countries are being removed from social media platforms in Russia. He emphasized the connection we have with these individuals, and others, in Ukraine, as they were inspired by Birmingham’s history to lead civil reform in their own country.

Humanitarian Consequences

Dr. Reuter detailed the human rights implications of the conflict. Undoubtedly, there has been an increase in human rights violations, including the right to life and civilian integrity. The air strikes and heavy artillery are in direct breach of international law, prompting an investigation by the International Criminal Court. The number of casualties is uncertain, with the. However, since the UN Office of the High Commissions for Human Rights only counts deaths that they can verify, the numbers reported by them are likely to be an underrepresentation. Moreover, the most concerning development in Dr. Reuter’s opinion is Putin’s remarks during his conversation with president Macron, in which he showed no sign of relenting. At the time of the panel discussion, approximately 160,000 people were displaced, and this number was expected to climb to several millions. Some individuals had to wait for up to 60 hours in in freezing weather before being allowed to enter Poland.

Despite this, the overwhelming attitude towards Ukrainian refugees has been one of warmth and acceptance: the European Union (EU) is set to grant Ukrainian refugees with permission to live and work in the EU, while receiving education and healthcare, for a year. While Dr. Reuter appreciates this response, she points to the problematic contrast in attitudes towards the refugees from Ukraine as opposed to refugees from the Middle East and Africa, who have not been received as positively. Another significant challenge is the delivery of humanitarian aid, particularly since the war conditions have made it more unsafe for aid workers. At the time of the panel discussion, Russia tentatively agreed to arrange for a humanitarian corridor to evacuate civilians and deliver aid safely. However, since then, there have been reports of air strikes impacting these corridors and other civilian buildings as well, including a maternity ward.

Interventions by the International Community

Dr. Corbetta discussed the possible options for the international community to intervene in the situation at hand. The reason for the hesitancy of western powers in deploying troops is the risk of escalation into nuclear warfare. The escalation may not necessarily be due to a strategic attack but even just an accident by the troops stationed in the area. This is known as the stability paradox – conventional forces cannot be used because it might lead to the use of nuclear weapons, but the potential disastrous consequences of nuclear weapons will encourage the use of conventional warfare instead. Dr. Corbetta believes Putin is attempting to make it seem as if Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons in order to prevent the stationing of conventional troops.

Sanctions are one of the other ways the west will be able to influence the situation in Ukraine. Although the sanctions imposed thus far have been strong, they take act slowly. It is important that the sanctions are increased progressively rather than levying all of the most severe sanctions at once in order to maintain leverage. Hence, the gradual nature of the impact of sanctions gives Putin time to cause further damage in Ukraine. China plays a key role in the success of sanctions as well. Dr. Corbetta says that Putin will count on China to become their key economic partner to reduce the burden of the sanctions. China at the time had not chosen sides, waiting to see the reaction from the West and the precedent that will be set for Taiwan. Another intervention is to have negotiations between Ukraine and Russia with the United Nations present to mediate. This may be particularly likely if the Russian advance is not very successful in the future, although Putin has not been keen on negotiations until now. Mediation can take a more direct form as well, with a neutral group placing troops in between the two countries to prevent conflict.

The image shows a soldier holding a gun. The Ukrainian flag is raised in the background.
“Ukraine Crisis” by theglobalpanorama is marked with CC BY-SA 2.0.

The Path to Peace

Dr. Verbeek was asked to speak about the prospects of peace and how to achieve it. He began by distinguishing the two components to peace. The first is negative peace, or the cessation of violence, while the second is positive peace, which goes beyond that to tackle social injustice that prevent the attainment of peace. Dr. Verbeek also cautioned against being quick to take sides and encouraged everyone to consider the human experience on both sides in addition to the actions of the leaders. He gave the example of a Russian soldier’s text message exchange with his parents, who wanted to send their son a package only to find out he was deployed in Ukraine. The soldier, distraught, told his parents that they were promised a warm welcome from the Ukrainians. Similarly, on the other side, it is important to ensure that refugees who are under assault are able to safely exit the country. Moreover, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Russia has ratified, should be invoked to reduce the suffering of children stuck in the middle of the war. Dr. Verbeek also believes it is time to reassess the necessity of NATO, as it was devised to combat the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. While some say it is needed for the situation in Iraq, it is worth considering if the way we have been doing things is the best way to continue moving forward.

With regards to sanctions, Dr. Verbeek mentioned that punishment is not very effective according to behavioral science. He believes more emphasis should be placed on negotiations, with the UN or western countries present to aid in coming to a compromise. There are currently talks underway in Belarus, and it is crucial that these continue. Thinking creatively and differently than in the past is necessary to find a solution to the crisis. As Dr. Verbeek put it, “it is very important for people to talk. As long as the guns are going, and people are not talking, peace will be far away.”

Other Key Points

When asked what Putin’s overarching goal may be, Dr. Corbetta mentioned that it would be difficult to say with certainty. His intention may be to restore Russia to its status in the past when the Soviet Union still existed. He also may not want Russia to take a back seat in the increasingly important US-China relationship. Colson added that Putin’s may be more financially motivated, aiming to take control of resources in the north and simultaneously undermining and dividing the Western powers. An example of such a resource is oil, which Putin may be able to leverage to exert influence over countries dependent on oil. In terms of the implications for international relations, Dr. Verbeek highlights the importance of not only addressing the current loss of lives but also paving the path for global cooperation in the future, a necessary prerequisite to addressing  existential crises such as global warming.

When asked about the United Nations Security Council’s role in diffusing the conflict, Dr. Reuter answered by first stating that the UN General Assembly vote condemning Russia’s actions was a positive sign. However, the influence of the Security Council is limited by Russia’s veto power. The Security Council, having been established after WWII, may not accurately represent the distribution of power in today’s world. Dr. Verbeek believes that it is time to reconceptualize the way in which the UN operates. In addition to this, Dr. Liber brought up the point that the outcome of the Ukraine crisis will have implications for nuclear disarmament as well. After being pressured by the US and other world powers, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal towards the end of the twentieth century and sought a guarantee for its national sovereignty in return. In light of the invasion of Ukraine, other countries may hesitate to proceed with nuclear disarmament out of fear for their national security.

Is there reason for hope? The answer from the panelists is a resounding yes. Dr. Reuter believes that the dissenting voices in Russia that are creating pressure from within is indeed a case for hope. In addition to that, the possibility for a corridor to supply humanitarian aid is a positive development. There are numerous organizations that are providing humanitarian relief to Ukrainians, and a detailed list can be found in an IHR Blog post written by Dr.Reuter. Dr. Corbetta sees the cohesiveness of the western countries as a reason for hope, particularly if this can be translated to other global issues. Moreover, the invasion of Ukraine is not rolling out as smoothly as Putin would have liked, which may dampen further efforts. This conflict has also made people realize that environmental issues overlap with security concerns – becoming less dependent on fossil fuels will reduce the influence that Russia has over western countries in case such a conflict arises in the future. Dr. Verbeek also finds It reassuring that many UN members stand in agreement that Russia’s actions are wrong. He believes the UN can be reformed to more fairly distribute power and create safeguards to prevent such a crisis, and all its disastrous consequences, from occurring again. For more thoughts from Dr. Verbeek on the conclusion of this war and a more peaceful future, visit his IHR blog post.

 

How to Help Refugees and Displaced People in Ukraine

Ukrainian refugee girl
Ukrainian children are fleeing Russian aggression. Photo taken in Przemyśl, Poland 27/02/2022 Source: Mirek Pruchnicki, Creative Commons

As a follow up to our panel discussion (recording will be posted shortly), we want to make the list of organizations available that support people fleeing from the violence in Ukraine. Beyond donating to the organizations listed below, you can also contact your representatives in Congress and share accurate information. Please see the resources at the end of my earlier blog postinformation and organizations put together by Ukrainian journalists, and this resource guide put together by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for people traveling in the conflict zone.

Here is the list of humanitarian organizations:

For Medical Support

General humanitarian help

  • Mercy Corps: humanitarian assistance
  • The International Committee of the Red Cross  or the Ukrainian Red Cross Society:  support food-producing initiatives and infrastructure repair (including water-pumping stations), as well as rebuilding damaged homes, and providing aid to hospitals, schools, mental health facilities and community centers
  • International Rescue Committee: Refugee aid, including food, hygiene and medical supplies, and other emergency resources for refugees, and there isn’t a way to earmark funds specifically for Ukraine on its website
  • World Central Kitchen: delivers warm meals to refugees and displaced people at various Ukraine border crossings
  • Global Empowerment Mission: emergency aid and travel assistance, operates a temporary travel and aid center in Medyka, Poland on the Ukrainian border.
  • Vostock SOS: Ukrainian-based humanitarian aid organization partnering with a German-Swiss nonprofit Libereco to help evacuate Ukrainian refugees out of the country

Children and other vulnerable groups

  • Voices of Children: Ukrainian organization providing psychological and psychosocial support to children
  • Save the Children: provides education, food etc. to children since 2014, provides protective services for unaccompanied minors who flee the country or are internally displaced
  • UNICEF: health, nutrition, HIV prevention, education, safe drinking water, sanitation and protection for children and families. You can earmark your donation specifically to its efforts in Ukraine on the donation page.
  • CARE: supports women and children in the fight against global poverty, Ukraine Crisis Fund

MAKE SURE TO SPECIFY THAT YOUR GIFT GO TOWARD RELIEF IN UKRAINE. Otherwise, money might go towards general causes, including operational budget. DON’T donate to the first crowd funding initiative you see, always vet the organizations carefully.

Please email us at ihr@uab.edu if you have additional vetted resources that could be added to this list or if you notice a broken link. We will update it over the coming days and weeks.  Thank you!

 

Diversity Resistance in Education – Event Recap

shadows of people of different races, religions, etc.
Source: Yahoo Images

In recent news, the subject of discussing racism and race within schools has become a controversial topic. On Wednesday, November 10th, the Institute for Human Rights at UAB welcomed Dr. Michelle Allen, UAB Diversity Education Director. Dr. Allen has a research background in Critical Theory, Queer Studies, and Narrative Inquiry. The seminar was moderated by Dr. Courtney Andrews, Researcher at the Institute for Human Rights (IHR) and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology. Throughout the discussion, Dr. Allen provided an overview of critical theory, discussed the place of the theory, and discussed race within secondary education.

Origins of Critical Race Theory

Dr. Allen began the conversation by defining critical theory and its use as a lens. Dr. Allen asserts critical race theory is based within legal studies. Critical Race Theory began in the legal academy in the 1970s and grew from the 1980s to the 1990s. Critical race theorists suggest that since race is embedded within our society, it is based within the laws that regulate the society. The purpose of the theory is to challenge neutrality and rationality in the judicial sphere. Thus, based upon this definition of the theory, racism is presented as systemic, and Dr. Allen emphasizes how each racial group can treat critical race theory as a “launching pad” for understanding their marginalization within society.

The Tenants of Critical Race Theory

From there, critical race theory was defined by five tenants: “race is a social construct, racism is a normal feature of society, lived experiences as scholarship, racism is codified in laws, and centering intersectionality.” Dr. Allen elaborates that race is not defined through biological means but rather through society creating meaning behind race as a construct. Furthermore, due to race being a social construct, it is a systematic issue that is produced from society and creates inequalities involving those minority groups. From these inequalities, Dr. Allen emphasizes how the lived experience of a person, as they experience racism, can serve as a possibility model to greater comprehend the lived experience of that entire minority group. Furthermore, how these individuals experience the world with all their intersecting identities from gender to sexuality to race.

Intersectionality

Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term “intersectionality,” which is the idea of “colluding identities coming together to paint a picture or create a unique lived experience,” as Dr. Allen defines. She further expands upon the significance of intersecting identities or a “colluding web of oppression” with an interesting case of General Motors. In the 1960s, the company had a policy that the people most recently hired would be laid off in situations of economic hardship. The policy was established to support layoffs during the 1970s. The most recently hired group consisted of black women, thus they were the most fired group. Five of these women filed a lawsuit against General Motors for discrimination, but the issue began with determining which identity the discrimination was based on. The lawyers could not prove that there was discrimination based on both being women and being black. Due to the isolation of gender and race, General Motors was able to prove the lack of discriminating due to hiring black people and women in general. Ultimately, this case displays the necessity of shifting the conversation to be inclusive and critical of the merging of various identities especially when we exist in an emerging global society.

Resistance to Critical Race Theory

Despite the applicability of critical race theory, the question that is often raised regarding the theory is if it should be taught within secondary schools. One participant went further and asked Dr. Allen “why is there resistance towards the theory being taught within schools?” Dr. Andrews suggested that white people often face difficulty in recognizing their own power and the shift in power once they realize their privilege in society. They remain complacent in attempting to understand racism systematically because, on an individual level, they feel they are not racist or discriminatory. Dr. Allen added on that within America, white people often have the luxury to view themselves as individuals compared to other minority groups who must identify with their racial group. Thus, white people do not feel that critical race theory is necessary to be absolved from a group-based identity.

The conversation shifted to address another question raised of whether people resist critical race theory due to ignorance or lack of understanding. Dr. Allen answers there is a culture of anti-intellectualism in which the general population prefers a non-expert over a more qualified person, even in areas of government. When Dr. Allen teaches her diversity courses, people often question the terms she presents, such as “cisgender,” and do not understand or recognize the importance of academia and scholarship in developing these new ideas or terms. Another participant argued that there is not a lack of understanding critical race theory, but that people simply do not want to engage in the conversation. They might not want their children to be taught that white people as a group have historically oppressed people of color. There is a misconception in America that discussing racism will create more racism, but people fail to comprehend that racism is implicitly taught by people around them saying or doing terrible things, so teaching that it exists and why it is wrong is important to prevent it from becoming a belief and practice in our children. In other countries where traumatic events of bigotry occurred like in Germany with Holocaust or South Africa with Apartheid, the events are explicitly taught and discussed to effectively address the ramifications of such tragic events. In the U.S., people often take the discussion of racism personally and do not recognize that it is a societal and systemic issue.

In discussing the role of critical race theory in schools, Dr. Allen emphasizes how the theory should not be solely taught as a lesson plan for the week, but rather be infused within the subject that is being taught. A participant who is a teacher raised a concern and asked Dr. Allen how to properly implement critical race theory into educational curriculum. Dr. Allen responded that it is important to acknowledge the history of certain forms of knowledge. For example, when discussing gynecological knowledge, it can be explained that this information was gained through the exploitation of black women through unethical scientific experimentation by people like Dr. Marion Sims and others. The point is not necessarily to teach critical race theory – a high level social theory – to high school students, but to teach them a true and accurate history of the systemic exploitation, discrimination, and marginalization of People of Color in American history as well as their contributions to our society. In this way, it is possible to de-center whiteness and white people as the dominant force driving our history and our future.

Thank you, Dr. Allen and Dr. Andrews and thank you everyone who participated in this eye-opening discussion.

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.