October 12 is International Day for Disaster Reduction (IDDR). This international event is hosted through the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). In 2023, the focus has been on fighting inequality and fighting to break the cycle of international disaster.
History of IDDR
IDDR started in 1989 as a call to action by the United Nations General Assembly to help educate and mobilize resources to reduce the burden of ongoing disasters and increase resilience. This annual event focuses on a different theme, interpreted from the “Sendai Seven Campaign ,” established in 2015 at the third-ever UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan. The framework proposed during this time helps mobilize resources to local communities to ensure they can act at capacity during times of need; this also allows for communities to be prepared not only for small-scale and large-scale disasters but also man-made, natural, environmental, and biological disasters.
People in hazmat suits tending to a chemical disaster during a mock drill. Source: American Red Cross Flickr
IDDR 2023
IDDR, in 2023, will focus on fighting inequality and issues and publish the results of the first-ever global survey on disability and disasters. This survey, with the purpose of championing disability and inclusion, was commissioned in 2013. 2023 also serves as a monumental year for IDDR as it is right after the midterm review of the aforementioned Sendai Framework; this review is vital, ensuring that progress is made to help accelerate action to rescue disaster disparities and prioritize resilience.
Current Burden of International Disasters
Disasters can happen at any time of the day. It is projected that by 2030, the world will face 1.5 significant disasters per day; this results in a total of 560 disasters per year. Of these disasters, a large proportion is caused by environmental, technological, and biological hazards. Disasters don’t discriminate and have an impact on all people; however, it is noted that they have a disproportionate impact on those with disabilities. This compounded impact results in the development of a perpetual cycle of disaster without resources being efficiently invested to prevent and manage these disasters.
Specifically for those with disabilities, it is noted that development infrastructure is not developed to be inclusive and is oftentimes overlooked during all stages of emergency management. This isolates those with limited mobility and requires a caregiver or other health services, preventing them from accessing resources that will allow them to recover effectively.
Within emergency responses, it is noted that people with disabilities are unnecessarily institutionalized during and after disasters; this further isolates them from their families, peers, and communities.
14 firefighters tending to a forest fire. Source: American Red Cross Flickr
Spotlight: Japan’s 2011 Earthquake
Though there are many examples of international disasters, the horrendous earthquakes in Japan in 2011 highlight the disparities those with disabilities face in times of national emergency. This earthquake, noted as the “strongest earthquake in its recorded history,” was not the only natural disaster that impacted the community; the earthquake caused a tsunami, which amplified the impact and the resources needed to remedy the issue. The earthquake and tsunami destroyed hundreds of businesses, homes, and nuclear reactors. The destruction of these nuclear reactors resulted in toxic materials being released into the environment and communities. Thousands of lives were lost; however,, approximately 25% were disabled. The infrastructure developed for emergencies did not serve them; oftentimes, evacuation centers were not accessible, did not have the needed infrastructure, etc. All of these factors resulted in many people with disabilities not having adequate assistance. These disparities are not unique to Japan and are seen internationally and domestically.
How Countries Can Take Action
The nature of disasters is cyclical; to have the most effective solution, it is vital to break the cycle and do so in a holistic manner. Firstly, there is the preventative lens of the disaster itself; it is vital to understand how disasters occur and to take the actions needed to establish early warning of these disasters. This allows countries to be prepared to make effective decisions that will have a positive global impact. Beyond this, countries and member states should take action to invest in their current infrastructure to make it more prepared for disasters. Though disasters can be mitigated through the above actions, they are not entirely preventable. Therefore, states should be prepared for their response to be inclusive for all; they must build capacity to accommodate vulnerable populations in their emergency response, including those with disabilities, older persons, and women.
How You Can Take Action
Acknowledging IDDR is the first step to helping advocacy for advancements in emergency responses and more equitable infrastructure during times of need. It is a two-pronged fork; communities should work to break the cycle of disaster by improving habits and holding entities responsible, but should continue to invest in making resources more equitable. As a community member, it is your responsibility to use your voice to advocate for both of the above. Another way is to use your time to volunteer alongside community and international partners who are working to make improvements. Together, we can break the disaster cycle and make emergency responses more equitable.
What Are Institutions for People with Disabilities?
In this post, I focus on the institutions that were, and remain, facilities operating for the purpose of housing people with disabilities. The National Council for Disability (NCD) defines these institutions as “a facility of four or more people who did not choose to live together.” They summarize a report made by a consortium of self-advocacy organizations based on their experiences with institutionalization. The NCD list of criteria to define an institution, as synthesized from various self-advocacy groups, is that they:
Include only people with disabilities,
Include more than three people who have not chosen to live together,
Do not permit residents to lock the door to their bedroom or bathroom,
Enforce regimented meal and sleep times,
Limit visitors, including who may visit and when they may do so,
Restrict when a resident may enter or exit the home,
Restrict an individual’s religious practices or beliefs,
Limit the ability of a resident to select or remove support staff,
Restrict residents’ sexual preferences or activities,
Require residents to change housing if they wish to make changes in the personnel who provide their support or the nature of the support,
Restrict access to the telephone or Internet,
Restrict access to broader community life and activities.
Historically, these kinds of institutions have primarily included people struggling with mental health and people with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
What Were America’s First Institutions for People with Disabilities?
Mental institutions in America predate the reality of an American nation. The earliest hospital for the mentally ill, the Publick Hospital for Persons of Insane and Disordered Minds, was founded in Virginia in 1773. It was closer to a prison than what we would now call a hospital; patients were kept chained and shackled, physically abused, intentionally fed rotten food, and bathed in ice water. Inmates were rarely released. Many were placed or kept in prisons prior to or after their evaluation as being “insane.” This began to change in the 1840s; a new medical director attempted to use more humane approaches to treatment. Those included treatment that was consented to and largely removing chains and shackles.
The first modern institution for disabled people was founded by Samuel Gridley Howe in 1848 in Boston, Massachusetts. It was considered experimental, despite others’ previous endeavors taken elsewhere, but Howe had experience in a similar environment, having founded the Perkins Institution for the Blind twenty years earlier. A contemporary article sings praises of the institution. Despite that, the electronic catalog of annual reports by the institution, renamed the Walter E. Fernald State School, ends abruptly in 1973 with a report on identifying child abuse and neglect.
Small Victorian-era prison cell. Source: Yahoo Images
John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy (JFK) played an important role in the early reform of institutions for people with disabilities. Many people know that Kennedy’s sister, Rosemary, was lobotomized, leaving her permanently disabled and confined to a psychiatric institution. Lesser known is that Kennedy established the President’s Panel on Mental Retardation in 1961, the first government committee on the topic. The committee’s recommendations led to numerous regulations being changed and legislation being passed. One Panel member, Eunice Shriver, who was also Kennedy’s sister, went on to found the Special Olympics.
Institutions for People with Disabilities in Alabama
The first mental hospital in Alabama was the Alabama Insane Hospital, founded in 1859 and renamed to Bryce Hospital in 1900. Ricky Wyatt, at the time 15 years old, was committed by a court to Bryce in 1969. He was not mentally ill.
Wyatt’s institutionalization led to a widespread deinstitutionalization movement. His guardian, a former employee of the hospital, sued Bryce Hospital on his behalf. During the discovery process, Wyatt’s lawyers discovered numerous preventable deaths in the facility, as well as a complete lack of plans in case of a fire; there was no way to contact the Tuscaloosa fire department after 5:00 PM, and the fire hydrants on the property were decades old and incompatible with modern firefighting equipment.
That lawsuit, Wyatt v. Stickney (1972), was part of the beginning of a legal deinstitutionalization movement. It created a minimum standard for care at Alabama institutions for the mentally ill.
Willowbrook State School
Willowbrook was a state-funded institution in Staten Island from the 1940s until the late 1980s. The school was over its capacity in only a few years; in 1965, Robert Kennedy described Willowbrook as a “snake pit” with “rooms less comfortable and cheerful than the cages we put animals in a zoo.” The few changes that resulted from Kennedy’s visit were insubstantial and short-lived.
Another infamous incident in Willowbrook’s history was the hepatitis experiment conducted on the children in residence. The exact rate of hepatitis infection in children at Willowbrook is unknown; I have seen estimates ranging from 30% to 90% of children becoming infected during their time at Willowbrook. At the time, many specific details of hepatitis were unknown. Willowbrook had a local strain of hepatitis that was reputed to be less lethal than strains common elsewhere. Saul Krugman, funded in part by the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, began conducting a study on hepatitis in Willowbrook – initially starting with an epidemiological focus, then shifting to a more involved study. Krugman intentionally infected 60 children at Willowbrook with the hepatitis virus by feeding them live samples of the hepatitis virus. Krugman “watched as their skin and eyes turned yellow and their livers grew bigger.”
Willowbrook left the public consciousness almost entirely until 1972, when Geraldo Rivera created a bombshell documentary that exposed the conditions at Willowbrook State School and institutions like it. In March 1972, residents’ parents filed a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the constitutional rights of Willowbrook residents. Just three years later, as a result of the lawsuit, the Willowbrook Consent Decree created standards the institution would be Willowbrook open, however; Willowbrook State School formally closed “officially and forever” on September 17th, 1987.
Postcard of Willowbrook with a yellow label stating “Willowbrook State School”. Source: New York Public Library Digital Collection
Despite the promise made in the wake of the Willowbrook scandal, alumni are still mistreated today. In 2020, The New York Times published the results of an investigation conducted into recent abuses in a group home in New York where some Willowbrook alumni resided. They describe physical abuse and neglect, including injuries caused by scalding water, deaths caused by neglect, and ant infestations. The investigation made allegations against 13 employees, nine of whom still worked for the agency, and seven of those still worked in group homes at the time of the article’s publishing.
Institutions for People with Disabilities Today
In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), along with other federal agencies, published a report on group homes, which have largely succeeded large institutions like Willowbrook or Bryce. They found that, in 49 states, health and safety procedures were not being followed.
“OIG found serious lapses in basic health and safety practices in group homes. OIG made multiple referrals to local law enforcement to address specific incidents of harm.”
Between 2004 and 2010, 1,361 people with disabilities died in Connecticut. 82 of those deaths were caused by neglect or abuse. The causes were found to be due to “abuse, neglect, and medical errors.” The OIG found that “State agencies did not comply with Federal waiver and State requirements for reporting and monitoring critical incidents.” These “critical incidents” include deaths, assaults, suicide attempts, and missing persons.
An older man in a wheelchair being escorted by a caregiver. Source: Yahoo Images
While we, as Americans, often like to think our country has advanced for people with disabilities, the reality is disappointing. Willowbrook alumni are still being abused forty years later. Group homes have been found to have widespread abusive and neglectful practices.
State Protection & Advocacy agencies exist as a legal protection for people with disabilities. In Alabama, the Alabama Disability Advocacy Program provides legal assistance to people with disabilities in cases involving civil rights violations and has the ability to investigate said cases in hospitals, group homes, schools, and any other facilities where abuse or neglect of people with disabilities occurs.
“They see me trying to do right, but my past is my problem,”said Terry Townshend, an inmate resembling countless others denied release on parole from Alabama’s prisons at astounding rates.
An image of inmates waiting for the time to pass. Source: ProPublica via Yahoo Images
Before we begin, I encourage you to read Kala Bhattar’s posts on the extensive history and severity of the Alabama prison crisis concerning human rights. She offers valuable insights into the unique nature of the legal system in Alabama, and how its background connects to ever-present challenges in prisons today.
This post is going to explore the overwhelming decrease in parole rates being granted to prisoners by the Alabama Parole Board. The Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles (ABPP) considers inmates eligible for parole after serving most of their sentence, allowing them to be released early from prison to reenter the community and complete service outside of prison walls. The declining rates of parole being granted are a barrier to the multifaceted issue of prison overcrowding pressed by understaffed facilities and increased prison violence. There are widely differing perspectives on the best strategies to calm the swelling chaos of prison overcrowding. To Alabama’s parole board, parole is not one of them.
It’s important to understand that parole is a privilege, not a right. Even if approved, inmates are released on strict conditions that may include reporting to a supervising officer, maintaining steady employment, not buying alcohol, or attending counseling to name a few. At any point, individuals can have their parole revoked and be reimprisoned.
Parole hearings are conducted based on guidelines set forth by the ABPP. They are meant to consider whether an incarcerated person is likely to reoffend. The board considers the severity of an offender’s criminal history, risk assessments, reports of institutional behavior, participation in programs or treatment, and plans for navigating problems the offender is likely to face again during reentry. These guidelines have recently been criticized as flat-out ignored by the Parole Board, likely sparked following the consistently declining rate of parole actually being granted. According to the ABPP’s Monthly Statistical Reports, Alabama has gone from a grant rate of 54% in 2017 to 10% in 2022, and it reached as low as 2% in January of this year.
A significant event sparking this change was Jimmy O’Neal Spencer, an inmate who was paroled in 2018 and, upon release, murdered three people. This tragic case led to tremendous pressure to keep inmates in prison and aligned with the sudden drop in grant rates beginning that year. When releasing convicted felons became understandably more controversial after Spencer’s release, the parole board’s actions were put under a microscope. The primary concern of the parole board seemed to shift to avoiding negative headlines.
Guidelines Being Overrun by Discretion
To be clear, the parole board ultimately has complete discretion over a decision, and the guidelines are meant to serve solely as an aid. Consequently, in May of 2023, the recommended 78% grant rate indicated by the guidelines was actually 18%. This raises questions about the disparities between parole guidelines and parole decisions. For one, why are the guidelines in place if they are consistently overlooked? This breach is represented by the conformance rate, which indicates the number of cases that matched the guidelines’ recommendation for grants or denials. It amounted to 23% in May, 14% in June, and 5% in July of 2023. This adds to years of disparities between recommended grant rates and actual grant rates present in Alabama. So, what is going on at parole hearings?
The precise reasons remain unclear. The parole board does not always articulate its reasons for approving or denying parole, even though they are required to by Alabama Code 15-22-26. Decisions were also commonly made based solely on the severity of an offense. Alabama determines the criteria for parole eligibility of certain offenses outlined in Section 15-22-27, but decisions are still weighed based on that information which the system has already approved. The point of having an additional hearing is to judge an inmate on who they are now.
Furthermore, race was an illuminated factor toward reentry this May, where 30% of decisions for White individuals conformed to the parole guidelines while 17% of decisions for Black applicants conformed to the same guidelines. However, I cannot comprehensively address the topic of race on reentry in this single blog.
The Power of Decision Makers
The drop in grant rates came promptly with Governor Kay Ivey’s appointment of Leigh Gwathney as the current board chair in 2019. Years later, Gwathney granted 2.4% parole of cases in the summer of 2023. Board members of the ABPP have tremendous discretion by law and have by no doubt used it to impact grant rates. Parole Watch documented a lack of attention toward the cases by the board and expanded on concerns about the three-chair system. A main takeaway from many perspectives on the hearing system is the influence the third seat can have on a hearing’s outcome. With two seats, the majority rule turns to a unanimous vote. When the board shrank to Gwathney’s seat, plus one, so did the grant rate from 13.2% in June to 4.1% in July.
If parole is denied, the board determines an inmates’ set off date, or how long they will wait before being reconsidered for parole. Gwathney voted for the maximum set off date in 73.4% of denied cases in the summer of 2023, more than any other seat. What makes overcrowding a progressively hopeless matter is the fact that Alabama’s Department of Corrections has an opportunity to clear crowded and understaffed prisons of inmates that are eligible by the guidelines and obvious recommendation to leave. With an 80% decrease in parole grants from September 2019 to June 2020, the population in custody increased, even as custody admissions decreased. The impact of denying parole to so many is daringly increasing the pressure of prisons that are already way above full occupancy.
Parole hearings are open to the public, but unlike other states, Alabama does not allow offenders to represent themselves. Also, no rebuttal is allowed by supporters after opponents give the final word. Often, victims or advocates will misrepresent the facts leaving supporters of parole with no opportunity to correct them. According to Parole Watch’s observations, some representatives claimed to advocate for the victim but still opposed parole even if it supported the victim’s wishes. Opponents of parole like Victims of Crime and Leniency (VOCAL) and the Attorney General’s Office, proved to have a tremendous influence on the decisions of the parole board. Of the 78.3% of hearings this summer where VOCAL was present, 96.6% were denied.
Inmates Are People Just Like Us
An image of aging inmates being pushed in wheelchairs outside by prison staff. Source: Yahoo Images via Unprison
71 year old Leola Harris, who has end-stage kidney failure, diabetes, and cannot walk or use the bathroom on her own, will likely die before her next hearing in 5 years. Having certification by the Department of Corrections for medical parole, testimonies by nursing home staff for a confirmed living plan, a successful lie detector test denying that she murdered the victim, and two decades of good behavior was not enough to get her out of prison for her remaining years.
This is reflected by many inmates who have numerous accomplishments to advocate for their improvement but are swiftly rejected. Terry Townshend has faced a life of drug addiction and resulting imprisonment, demonstrating fighting efforts to stay away from pills and crime. His release on parole failed when he got back into drugs after being given take-home narcotics after cancer surgery. Terry did everything he could to build personal responsibility from completing substance abuse treatment programs to earning a degree in trade school, and this in turn helped him understand his addiction and how to handle it without crime. However, like many, he was held down by his failures and rejected.
Timothy Bille, a now free man who was denied parole 4 times in 18 years, expressed that “They tell you to do all these prison programs to increase your chances for parole, but when they deny guys like Terry, it feels like a lie.”
Finally, Frederick Bishop was denied parole at his hearing scheduled 10 days after he died in prison. Justice is not denying release to a corpse. His case demonstrates a lack of attention by the entire justice system toward informing relevant parties of an inmate’s status and judging them accordingly.
The reality is that Alabama prisons have become more unsafe than the free world. Overcrowding in prisons is not as much due to new crime but to repeated declines of release for experienced inmates. Advocates for less violence and victimization in prison populations would agree that prisoners of minimal risk to their community, especially under careful supervision, should be granted freedom, and therefore safety.
Jimmy O’Neal Spencer has been convicted, denied parole, and sentenced to death. It is time that thousands of others who are stuck in Alabama’s combusting, debilitating conditions deserve real chances at parole.
One of the things that dominate American society is what I like to call the “epitome of excess.”
We live in a capitalistic culture that thrives on consumers’ dissatisfaction. Our society’s culture defines American success as getting promoted to a position high enough that one can make enough money to purchase a big house in the suburbs, add a few cars, and have an annual family vacation.
Influencers on social media have added to this growing consumption. People have access to information via “Get Ready With Me” vlogs on TikTok, which feature various (expensive) products to desire based on trends that go in and out of style in just a few short months. This cultural desire to keep up with trends causes a constantly growing urge to have more. Nearly everything is capitalized on, giving us a concept initially coined by Herbert A. Simon in the 1960s known as the attention economy. Digital creators earn money based on views and engagement from their followers. People online regularly discuss strategies to “trick the algorithm” to further capitalize on this economy where time is one of the most valuable things someone can “give,” similar to how we have traditionally viewed money and, later, information. The phrase “time is money” comes to mind, but not in the same way that my grandparents would understand it.
Beyond seeking to maximize the number of seconds a viewer will stay on the video before swiping, this culture has other effects. It pushes for overconsumption. It has become common to see content creators post videos of six dresses they ordered while asking their followers to “help them choose which one to wear” to the event they have coming up. When I was in high school, everyone wanted the Hydro flask. Today, it is the Stanley Cup. As I wrote this article, I was notified that the newest cup fascination is an Owala.
Figure 1- Source: Yahoo Images; Taking photos and videos to put on social media is easier than ever.
It has even become ordinary for content creators to try and capture views by “de-influencing” whatever the sought-after object is at the time. Spoiler alert: this is generally just pointing to a different brand of metal cup on Amazon that is better and cheaper than the almighty Stanley cup (and, coincidentally, listed in the person’s Amazon storefront, where they earn a commission on every purchase made).
This is just influencing—a system that attempts to capitalize on the attention that follows dissent. The concept is not new, but it has changed how people earn money.
People run entire side hustles by making videos showcasing “Five Products You Need from Amazon,” with aesthetic videos of acrylic containers or trendy dresses.
It is normal to hear people joke about “doomscrolling” for hours online, highlighting the over-encompassing nature of modern social media and its role in our everyday lives. The pervasive nature of this beast has become an accepted fact of life, so we do not always think about questioning it. It takes a degree of separation before one might stop and think, what is the cost of this lifestyle? We do not generally stop to consider how the Amazon package made it to our house in two days. We rarely ask who made the trendy cup we found at Walmart or the skirt we found at American Eagle.
We rarely ask any questions about the actual cost of what we consume.
Figure 2- Source: Yahoo Images; Zara is a well-known fast fashion brand.
As a culture, we are so far disconnected from the places and communities that create the products we use that many Americans would struggle to imagine what life would be like if we did not have access to these things. As a culture, we love a bargain, especially when we get to tell someone else about the three-dollar T-shirt we found at Target. What a steal!
It is a culture of mass consumption, and no one is immune to it. From a nicer car to a bigger house to a new water bottle or wardrobe (even when you do not use most of what you have), the desire to have more continues, especially within fashion.
Overconsumption has more negative effects than I can effectively capture in one blog post. It exists in all aspects of life across all sectors of commerce. Based on personal experience as a woman living in the world, fast fashion is one of the most pervasive issues that could be addressed more effectively if more people stopped to question before they purchased.
For this reason, I am honing in on fashion today, but by no means is that to imply that fashion is the sole or most important issue of our insatiable, overconsuming culture.
History
To contextualize the history of fashion consumption, it is important to mention how the fashion industry has shifted its production model over time.
Historically, most clothing purchased in the United States was produced within the country, created by garment workers during the Industrial Revolution. While I will not delve into much of the history here, my colleague, Kala Bhattar, wrote a phenomenal blog that delves further into the history of fashion. I highly encourage people to check that out if they are interested.
Figure 3- Source: Yahoo Images; A child working on a textile machine in the industrial era
For the purpose of this blog, the critical thing to note is that this system of domestic production and consumption is no longer standard (and is actually pretty rare) and that most large fashion companies have shifted production into different countries in the Global South, so they can take advantage of the cheaper labor.
Pollution
According to the United Nations, the fashion industry is the second largest polluting industry in the world, sitting right behind big oil. As of 2019, H&M was known for having $4.1 billion worth of unsold clothes. Some of the unsold clothing is used to fuel a power plant in Sweden. Still, H&M (and many other brands) still produce a high quantity of textile waste that never gets used, and in many places, it gets sent straight to landfills. People consume 400% more clothing today than twenty years ago. This excessive consumption tends to contribute to human rights inequities like gender inequality since most garment workers are women. It also contributes to the climate crisis due to the manufacturing of chemicals and landfilled textile waste.
The entire business model of fast fashion companies exists based on the idea that consumers will buy things, wear them a few times, and then toss them out and buy more to try and keep up with cycling trends. This model relies on (and intends for) the products to only be used a few times before being thrown out.
With our current consumption habits, the best-case scenario is that an item will be purchased and worn a few times before being discarded. That is a pretty pitiful best-case scenario.
Figure 4- Source: Yahoo Images; Fast fashion is often landfilled after only a few wears
Varying Disparities
Fast fashion’s impact on human rights depends on the location, which widely varies. In the United States, the textile waste predominantly goes to landfills. A 2007 North Carolina study showed how solid waste landfills are disproportionately located in Black neighborhoods. In the world abroad, it is known that fast fashion companies like Zara and Forever 21 capitalize on the cheaper labor in the Global South, resulting in what many have called “modern slavery.”
Extensive human rights violations are associated with fast fashion, from child labor to exposure to toxic chemicals to dangerous working conditions. For instance, in a 2022 undercover investigation, it was discovered that Shein employees work 18-hour days with one day off per month and make as little as 4 cents per garment.
I am keeping this section brief not because these problems are not important but to discuss potential solutions because the ultimate truth is that many people already know about these issues, and we need action.
Affordability
I would be remiss without mentioning the most significant barrier to purchasing slow fashion, and that is affordability.
Since we live in a culture that encourages overconsumption, some may scoff at spending more than twenty dollars on a pair of jeans. We are used to the cheap stuff and accustomed to buying something to use it for a few times before pawning it off at the thrift store or throwing it in the trash can.
Sustainable brands are notoriously expensive by modern standards, and not everyone can afford those brands because they are the exception rather than the rule. In the past, clothing has been made to last for generations, so it was expected that consumers would pay higher prices upon the new purchase.
I want to be clear here that in no way am I trying to overromanticize the past systems of the fashion industry. I would highly doubt that some Americans today seek to abolish the minimum wage or have children working in our factories again. With that being said, we have lost the skills, knowledge, and willpower to make our purchases last in a way that respects the resources and labor it took to make the piece.
Conclusion and Solutions
In terms of solutions, there are some things that we can do to spark change within the fashion industry. These actions exist on two primary fronts: purchasing and—let me emphasize this one here—NOT purchasing.
Regarding true ethics and sustainability, relying on companies to make ethical decisions is not the best strategy since many of them are dishonest about their products’ true social and environmental sustainability. This includes many brands that some would consider to be “sustainable.” Fashion companies are notorious for greenwashing their products, making them appear a better option, even when most of their clothing is not produced ethically or sustainably.
Due to this, consumers should focus on reducing their consumption overall rather than buying when possible.
The best way to minimize the impact on people and the planet manipulated by the fashion industry is to stop buying from those brands. If you need something new and want to buy it, I encourage you to return to your closet and shop from there (because you probably do not need anything). This might sound crazy, but most of us have more than we need, and we must recognize that and act accordingly.
Another solution is to borrow something from a friend or family member. Thrifting or buying secondhand can also be good options to minimize your impact.
All of these examples mentioned fall under the front of not purchasing. If a shirt has holes, learn to mend it to be re-worn. If you want to wear something new to an event, ask a friend to borrow something or try to style something in a new way. Use what you have, and you will be forced to be more creative.
Figure 5- Source: Yahoo Images; People shopping at a clothing swap
It can also be helpful to consider the washing instructions for specific items. Many articles of clothing would last significantly longer if they were hang-dried or hand-washed.
When these options have been exhausted, and you must purchase something new, be selective. As a consumer, making conscious choices when purchasing new clothing dramatically helps. Suppose you cannot picture yourself wearing something often, or you know the item does not go with anything you have. In that case, it is probably a good idea to refrain from purchasing it.
If you cannot afford to spend a lot of money on clothes, fast fashion is going to be the obvious choice, so it is best to focus on making a mindful purchase with an item you will wear for a long time. Beyond that, the best thing is to take care of your clothes as best as possible to maximize the use you can get out of them.
If you love a staple piece from a sustainable brand, try to save up to invest in it—I guarantee you that it will probably last for years. I recommend this website to check on brands you are interested in—it rates brands based on environmental impact, labor conditions, and animal welfare.
Final Thoughts
We all experience the desire to have more, and that is not always a bad thing. Still, our culture has a lot of work to do regarding setting realistic expectations about the number of things we think we need.
For better or worse, I am an optimist at heart, and I am confident we can do better.
A Syrian family in Turkey. Source: Creative Commons.
In recent years, anti-Arab rhetoric has become increasingly visible in Turkey, fueled by complex socio-political and economic factors. Historically known as a bridge between East and West, Turkey has long been home to diverse communities, including Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, and Greeks. However, with the influx of Arab migrants and refugees, particularly following the Syrian Civil War, tensions have risen, sparking a disturbing trend of xenophobic and anti-Arab sentiments. This blog post explores the causes, manifestations, and implications of this rising anti-Arab rhetoric in Turkey.
Historical Context: Arab-Turkish Relations
The historical relationship between Turkey and Arab nations has been shaped by the Ottoman Empire, which governed much of the Arab world until the early 20th century. Following the empire’s collapse, nationalist movements in both Arab nations and Turkey drove a wedge between these communities. Fast forward to the 21st century, Turkey’s regional policies, particularly under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have seen fluctuating alliances with Arab states. However, these geopolitical dynamics don’t fully explain the more recent wave of anti-Arab sentiment that has taken root within Turkey’s society.
The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Catalyst for Tension
The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, triggered one of the largest refugee crises in modern history. As a neighboring country, Turkey quickly became a primary destination for Syrian refugees, with over 3.7 million currently residing within its borders, making it the largest host of refugees in the world. While Turkey initially welcomed refugees under a temporary protection regime, the prolonged nature of the conflict has strained public resources and tested the patience of local communities.
A 2018 report by the Brookings Institution noted that the economic impact of hosting such a large number of refugees, coupled with Turkey’s existing economic challenges, has led to growing resentment among Turkish citizens who feel that their job opportunities and resources are threatened by the refugee population (Brookings Institution, 2018). This economic strain has provided fertile ground for xenophobic rhetoric, with Arabs often scapegoated as the cause of Turkey’s economic difficulties.
Social Media and the Spread of Anti-Arab Narratives
The rapid spread of misinformation on social media has amplified anti-Arab sentiments in Turkey. As highlighted by a 2021 report from the International Crisis Group, various narratives falsely claim that Arabs receive preferential treatment in public services, occupy housing meant for Turkish citizens, and are unwilling to integrate into Turkish society (International Crisis Group, 2021). These stereotypes have fostered an environment in which Arabs, particularly Syrian refugees, are viewed as a cultural and economic threat.
Percentage of Arabic speakers in Turkey (including refugees) in 2018. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Political Rhetoric: Nationalism and Populism Fueling Anti-Arab Sentiment
In Turkish politics, nationalist rhetoric has been a powerful tool, especially as economic conditions worsen. Leaders from opposition parties have frequently targeted the Arab refugee population, promising to repatriate Syrians if they gain power. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), has often vocalized anti-refugee positions, claiming that refugees are an economic burden on Turkey (Al Jazeera, 2022). Such rhetoric not only gains traction among economically vulnerable citizens but also legitimizes anti-Arab sentiments within public discourse.
Erdogan’s government has adopted a dual approach—on one hand, maintaining its open-door policy for humanitarian reasons, and on the other, seeking to return a large number of Syrians to “safe zones” in northern Syria. While this policy has been touted as a solution to relieve the domestic pressure caused by the refugee crisis, critics argue that it is an attempt to appease nationalist sentiments and address domestic discontent with Arab communities (The New Humanitarian, 2023).
Cultural Xenophobia: Deepening Social Divides
Anti-Arab rhetoric in Turkey has also extended to cultural and social realms. Some Turkish citizens argue that the presence of Arabic language signs, the establishment of Arab-owned businesses, and cultural differences signal a broader threat to Turkish identity. A study published in Ethnic and Racial Studies observed that Arabs in Turkey face discrimination in housing, employment, and social interactions due to these perceived cultural differences (Yıldız & Sayın, 2021).
Media outlets have also been complicit in promoting anti-Arab stereotypes. Sensationalized reports frequently link Arab residents to crime and social disorder, further entrenching negative perceptions. This cultural xenophobia has led to an alarming increase in hate crimes against Arab communities, with physical and verbal assaults reported in various cities across Turkey (Human Rights Watch, 2023).
The Impact of Anti-Arab Rhetoric on Turkey’s Social Fabric
The rise of anti-Arab rhetoric has serious implications for Turkey’s social cohesion. As anti-Arab sentiments continue to rise, both Turkish nationals and Arab residents find themselves divided along ethnic and cultural lines, leading to an environment where distrust and hostility overshadow potential cooperation and understanding.
Addressing the Issue: The Need for Inclusive Policies
To address anti-Arab sentiment, Turkey must adopt more inclusive policies that recognize and address the legitimate concerns of both Turkish citizens and Arab residents. Policymakers should prioritize efforts to improve economic conditions for all residents and counter misinformation. Additionally, fostering intercultural dialogue and promoting positive narratives about diversity could help to alleviate existing tensions.
Turkey’s future as a multicultural society depends on its ability to overcome the challenges posed by anti-Arab rhetoric. By embracing inclusive policies and promoting social unity, Turkey can transform the current wave of xenophobia into an opportunity for growth and resilience.
While it may seem like a common practice throughout the world, only about 28% of countries still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. Source: Yahoo! Images
Stay tuned for my next article, where I will explore how the process of the death penalty, as well as the methods used to end the lives of inmates, may bring up additional human rights concerns. That article will be posted in the upcoming weeks.
October 10th is the World Day Against the Death Penalty.
It was my eighth birthday. I had gotten home from school and after eating my snack, I sat down on the couch. My birthday is in January and my mom hadn’t gotten around to packing up the expensive nativity scene from my grandmother that was set out on the sofa table behind my head. I got bored with my show, as eight-year-olds do, so I turned around and started playing with the porcelain figurines. To me, they were no more than stiff, less fun Barbies. Little did I know all it took was one little high-five between Joseph and the wise man with the frankincense before *CRACK* Joseph lost a hand.
I still remember my mother’s face when I told her what happened. This nativity scene from her mother-in-law meant so much to her and she was feeling so many emotions. I knew that I deserved to be punished in some way for my mistake. I sat in time out for a while, I got a “stern talking-to” when my dad got home, and I didn’t see my favorite (real) Barbie for weeks.
My eight-year-old, future-philosophy-student self couldn’t help but question why all of this was happening to me. It was my birthday; my parents were supposed to be nice to me that day, but I still got in trouble. I knew that I should’ve been more careful with the figurine, but I also knew that what I did was an accident. I knew as soon as it broke that I had caused a problem, but I almost immediately learned from it: this material is weaker than Barbie material so I would need to use gentler hands when holding it. But I still couldn’t figure out why my parents were doing this. As I grow up, this concern still follows me. What motivates society to punish people who break the law? How could our system of punishment improve to allow people to learn from their mistakes and to still participate in society?
Minorities, especially racial minorities, make up a disproportionate percentage of prisoners on death row. Source: Yahoo! Images
Theories of Punishment
Retribution
The Retribution Theory of punishment holds that people who harm others deserve to be harmed and that the justice system should give them what they deserve. I like to call this the revenge theory or the “eye for an eye” theory. The arguments for this theory are, in my opinion, not very strong. Sure, it seems intuitive that when somebody wrongs us we want to wrong them back, but what good does that do? And should we really set up an entire justice system based on retribution when that only causes more harm to people, despite if they “deserve it?”
Deterrence
The Deterrence Theory of punishment holds that societies should punish moral failings in a way that when people hear about the punishment for a certain crime, it deters them from committing it. For example, people may not use drugs because they are afraid of what would happen if they got caught. If we want people to stop doing drugs, according to deterrence theory, we should inflict harsher punishments for those caught with drugs. The main critique of this theory is that it does not deter people from doing the thing, it only deters people from getting caught doing the thing, thus driving the whole crime farther and farther underground.
Restoration
The Restoration, Humanitarian, or Utilitarian theory of punishment is based on the idea that after a harm occurs, we should avoid any further harm coming to anybody involved. This may entail rehabilitating people with addictions to live addiction free or mandating driving school and road safety courses for negligent drivers. This doesn’t just apply to low-level crimes though. This may mean a prison system similar to Norway’s, where even the most violent criminals are kept in a remote community where their rights and privileges are upheld. The average sentence is around 8 months, and after they’ve had time to reflect on their actions, they are allowed to return to society as usual. Click here to learn about what went into the design of one of Norway’s most famously humane prisons. This theory is often criticized as being “soft on crime,” saying that if we don’t make going to prison incredibly unpleasant, criminals will not have any reason not to re-offend.
The youngest person to be executed by electric chair in the 20th century was 14-year-old George Stinney Jr. His conviction was later vacated as an unfair trial. Source: Yahoo! Images
Pragmatically, when we are deciding which theory of punishment to ascribe to, we are balancing the weight of the government’s function that motivates law enforcement with the human rights of everybody involved in the crime.
So what is the government function of capital punishment and does it outweigh the most fundamental human right, one’s right to one’s own life?
Government Function
It is widely agreed upon that the government’s most fundamental function is to protect the rights of people in its jurisdiction. This includes mediating conflicts in which a person impedes on another’s rights. In these terms, the crime of theft is when a perpetrator impedes on the victim’s right to own property. In this case, the government then has an obligation to interfere in some way to bring justice to the victim. Most of the time, this interference will constitute the government temporarily impeding on the rights of the perpetrator themselves. This may mean keeping them in jail until their trial, imposing a fine on them, or even sentencing them to prison time.
Human Rights
The right to life is inarguably the most fundamental natural human right that exists. All humans have a fundamental right to live their bodies’ natural lifespan through to its end. It can even be argued that humans have the right to the best healthcare available to extend their lifespan as long as possible. Without the right to life, no other human rights of any kind can be realized. This is why the most widely recognized phrase about human rights lists life as the first.
As the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and from that, they derive inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
To take someone’s life is to take away that person’s most fundamental, widely-recognized human right.
Balancing Both
Does the governmental function of societal safety ever justify taking away the perpetrator’s number one human right? Especially when, given that life in prison is an alternative option, societal safety is not even at risk by keeping these people alive. Many people will argue that keeping them in prison requires too many resources whereas the death penalty is a quick and easy way to save resources for the rest of society. Not only does this completely dehumanize people who have committed crimes, but it also switches the governmental interest from public safety to the much less compelling governmental interest of distributing resources. The interest in these resources is not compelling enough to justify the deprivation of someone’s life. Even if you think it is okay to impede on a perpetrator’s rights to prevent them from causing more harm to society, it is unclear that the deprivation of life would achieve this goal when life in prison is an alternative.
Three states still allow hanging as a possible execution method. Source: Yahoo! Images
According to the Retribution theory, people who took another life deserve to be killed solely on the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. But something doesn’t sit right when we try to defend this principle without dehumanizing people convicted of crimes. As a society, is it a good thing that we think a certain group of people deserves to die, even if their qualification into that group was voluntary?
According to the Deterrence theory, the death penalty may actually be an effective deterrence for prospective criminals. If they knew that committing this crime may literally mean the end of their lives, they may not commit the crime. However, it is unclear that the deterrence factor of life in prison, essentially ending people’s lives as they know it, is so much less effective than the deterrence factor of the death penalty that it justifies taking lives.
According to the Restoration theory, capital punishment stands no chance. This theory is based on the hope of rehabilitation for criminals, even if that means they are only ever restored insofar as to live a meaningful life in prison. This theory is considered to be the most humane approach to punishment, and as far as research can tell, the one compatible with the lowest recidivism (re-offending) rates.
When it comes to political corruption, the first countries that come to your mind are probably prominent ones that you have heard about in the news such as North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, and countless many others. This article will concentrate on a smaller country that is having a more profound impact on the human rights of its citizens: El Salvador. It will be done by analyzing the leadership of its president, Nayib Bukele, and how he transformed the political and social landscape of Central America by going head-to-head with gangs and crime. His actions, rather than lowering crime in his country, have only exacerbated the crisis. While many Western citizens believe that taking the fight directly to the front is justified and right, it actually does not remedy the cause of the violence: a lack of socioeconomic stability and development.
The Problem
El Salvador is the tiniest country in Central America, but it was nicknamed the “murder capital” of the Western hemisphere because of the severely high homicide statistics in the world, excluding war zones. Gangs run rampant and have a staggering amount of control over the population as they facilitate the transfer of drugs and materials from the black market. For years, the previous government administrations ineffectively attempted to damper these issues, but they were unable to, which led to the rise of Nayib Bukele.
Who is Nayib Bukele?
With his rise to power as President of El Salvador in 2019, Nayib Bukele became the face of a new era of political aspirations for the people of his country. However, despite the pressures that came with him being the youngest governmental leader in Latin America at age forty-one, he faced the more daunting task of creating a government that would do away with the corrupt administrations prior to his own. By creating a political party under the name, “Nuevas Ideas”, with its English translation being “New Ideas,” while previously serving as the mayor of San Salvador, he advocated for change against the political establishment. He initially relied on the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (F.M.L.N.), a major political party that rose to power after the war between the guerrilla and government forces. The organization returned the favor years later by helping him win the office of mayor of San Salvador. However, it was his ability to form an independent party for his presidential campaign that caught the attention of the public. By becoming a political outsider, Bukele corruptly used this publicity and power of being the unheard-of candidate, and later incumbent president, to crack down on the gangs and rise in crime that have dominated the streets and consequently, which had a negative influence on the standard of living for all Salvadorans because the manner in which he did so was morally and legally wrong.
So far
On June 1, while speaking to celebrate the beginning of his fourth year as president, he renewed his promise to construct a prison that would contain criminals and gangs. This prison, later named the Center for Confining Terrorism, was built with the idea of housing over forty thousand inmates together. Bukele, in order to present a strong front against gangs, temporarily removed constitutional rights within the country, enabling those even under suspicion for being a criminal or being a part of a gang to be arrested without any form of trial or due process. Policies that control and get rid of crime are necessary and should be implemented to the fullest extent that they can, but this course of action is not representative of a democracy but rather a dictatorship. By referencing himself as “the coolest dictator in the world,” he is recklessly enforcing a vision of control that directly disobeys the constitution of his country. Furthermore, Bukele has allowed tens of thousands of armed military personnel to roam the streets of various cities, which he then justified because it worked in one city. These measures, along with multiple drone flybys over cities and sudden detainments of any citizen, strip Salvadorans of their basic human right to live without fear of being wrongfully imprisoned. A government that rules with fear is one that does not properly rule at all because the purpose of government is to provide hope and help to people in ways that others cannot.
Image 1 – Source: Yahoo Images; The unnecessary torture of prisoners being for the public to witness and hopefully enact action.
Ending it once and for all?
Image 2 – Source: AmnestyUSA; An image of citizens taking to the streets to demonstrate how pressing of a matter it is.
Going forward, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has provided solutions for how to better solve issues with crime and gangs in El Salvador. They directly addressed various contributors to human rights violations, such as the Bukele administration, legislative body members, the attorney general, and other government officials. The most compelling course of action given to the Bukele administration was to confront why someone would want to join a gang, which would consist of resolving the economic and educational disparities that deprive citizens of having the chance to maintain a prosperous lifestyle. Putting people behind bars is seldom the answer to reducing crime because it does not address the issue at its core. For the legislative body, the HRW recommends that they immediately terminate the state of emergency that has allowed President Bukele to enforce soldiers in the streets and imprison any person with suspicion of being in a gang. Applying this course of action will be a challenge for the legislators because of their unicameral body that has typically leaned towards supporting Bukele.
Final Say
Image 3 – Source: AmnestyUSA; An image of family that represents plenty of other families that could be experiencing similar hours.
The human rights violations that have exponentially grown in El Salvador are because of the discourse and leadership of President Nayib Bukele and his advocators. They believe that they are effectively getting rid of gangs and other forms of crime in their country, but the manner in which they are doing so has caused them to have a destructive aftermath on citizens who want no part in this war. Furthermore, the deterioration of conditions in prisons that are already housing an increasing number of inmates demands the attention of people from around the world as these atrocities deserve to be seen and heard so that its enablers are held accountable.
A Philosophical Take on the Detrimental Climate Effects of European Colonization in North America
Much Indigenous cultural and epistemological wisdom is passed down by their Elders. Source: Yahoo! Images
I would like to begin by recognizing that the land I sit on while I write was stolen in cold blood by European colonizers. On a once flourishing forest valley now sits tons upon tons of concrete. On land once occupied and cared for by Creek and Choctaw peoples now sits freshly mowed yellow lawns painted blue, overflowing drainage pipes, and office buildings filled with tired, underpaid workers. It is with a heavy heart that I mourn the loss of Indigenous people and their cultures at the hands of greedy White supremacist colonizers. With this article, I do not wish to convey that climate effects are the only or the most detrimental result of European colonization and their genocide of Native peoples. Life, culture, language, and knowledge, to name a few, are some of the more immense losses. The purpose of this article is not to reduce this catastrophic event to solely how it affects the climate today but to bring attention and reverence to Indigenous philosophies, traditions, and ways of life that can inform our modern discussions of climate change.
As a precursor to this article’s more philosophical take, you may want to read about the historical contexts of colonization. In this case, please check out this article recently posted by my colleague here at the IHR, Kala Bhattar.
Concrete Jungles
How do you provide for yourself and your family?
Your answer probably involves producing a product or carrying out a service that society deems valuable enough to attribute money to you for it. You then use that money to buy food, water, and shelter from those in your community who produce or own it. Money probably plays a huge role in your everyday life, and if you’re anything like me, it’s probably one of the larger stressors on your mental health. How much of our lives do we have to sacrifice doing hard labor or sitting behind computer screens in order to make enough money to stay alive to do that work all over again? When was the last time you ate food that you or your loved ones didn’t spend money on? When was the last time you wandered into a forest to breathe unpolluted air and observe the plants and bugs that call your land home? Why does modern culture demand of us that we focus all of our energy on acquiring wealth and ignore our own mental health to do so?
The monarch butterfly has recently become endangered because of deforestation and climate change affecting their migration patterns. Source: Wellfield Botanical Gardens
Modern Western society does not live “at one” or in harmony with the Earth. We no longer heavily rely on nature and the climate, but increasingly rely on money and the economy. It’s as if this planet is solely a stomping ground for a “holier than thou” species to level out and cover in concrete. The Earth has been screaming back at us for years. We’ve seen endangerment of species such as the monarch butterfly, rising sea levels, and one of the worst wildfire seasons to ever be recorded. This is consistent with deforestation, the degradation of the ozone layer, and rising global temperatures. These are all aspects of the climate that human activity has affected. In North America, the notion that humans are separate from the ecosystem, that distancing oneself from nature is “more civilized,” and that relying on the flora and fauna of one’s homeland is “primitive” or “dirty” roots all the way back to 1492.
Symbiotic Humanity
Before European pilgrims traveled over to the North American continent, the land was inhabited by vastly diverse Indigenous tribes and nations. Some of these tribes were nomadic and lived by moving around the landscape, hunting and gathering an array of foods as they traveled. Others were mostly stationary, growing crops and raising farm animals to provide for themselves and their communities. There were many groups with many different worldviews, religions, and philosophies. The one thing that united them all was their profound reverence for the forces of nature. They saw themselves as a part of the ecosystem of the land they lived on. It was an honor to raise crops and livestock and to participate in their homeland’s well-being. They promoted biodiversity, expressed empathy and gratitude towards the animals they ate, and valued cooperation in and between their communities. They practiced herbal medicine, tending to their sick and injured with natural remedies that they had identified to have healing properties. They even had their own forms of religion/spirituality centered around connecting one’s spirit to the Earth, feeling what Mother Nature needs, and providing that for her in exchange for her providing for them. The human population on the North American continent was thriving and developing. There was peace within and between nations for the most part. All of their needs were taken care of so they could focus on negotiations rather than violence.
Squanto (right of center) was a member of the Samoset tribe, known for being friendly to the European colonizers, teaching them language, agriculture, and traditions. Source: Yahoo! Images
Property and Greed
When the Europeans arrived, the Americans taught them how to live on their continent. They taught them how to grow crops in their soil, hunt for their own food, and use every part of the animal including the hide, bones, and meat. They were more than willing to allow these settlers to join them in their symbiotic relationship with nature. To them, more people meant a more diverse and stronger community to help each other out.
One can imagine their surprise when the Europeans introduced them to greed. They introduced them to the ideas of personal property, wealth hoarding, and social status based on material goods. They saw all of this land as unclaimed and up for grabs since the Americans had no formal ownership system. They started violently enforcing this ‘property view’ of land onto the Americans. They would claim plots of land as their own and hoard all of the resources that could be obtained from it. They also were not fond of the Americans’ religion. They started threatening them with eternal damnation if they didn’t convert to Catholicism. They called them “primitive” for their symbiotic relationship with nature, and “savages” for their denial of Christianity.
Centuries later, after colonizing the East Coast, the English-speaking Europeans separated from the British monarchy and believed it was their god-given manifest destiny to own the land all the way to the West Coast. So they loaded up their swords and crossed the Appalachian mountains, slaughtering and relocating the Native people along the way. Although many Native tribes had helped Great Britain during the Revolutionary War, Great Britain was nowhere to be found when the colonizers perpetuated their genocide.
This wildfire season has been the worst Quebec has ever seen. Indigenous people, while only 5% of Canada’s population, make up 42% of wildfire evacuees. Source: Global News. Click here to read more about the personal effects that these wildfires have caused Indigenous families and communities.
A Culture of Climate Apathy
Today, we live in a world where we mow our lawns once a month and call it environmental care. We plant uniform gardens outside our homes solely for aesthetics without caring that the ‘weeds’ we pull up are the only sources of food for certain butterfly and bumblebee species. We stomp spiders into our carpets for daring to wander onto our property. We spray poison on our foods so that humans are the only ones that can eat them, and we pack hundreds of cows into small barns with no ventilation to steal their children’s food for ourselves before slaughtering them when they stop producing. We can’t survive without constant air conditioning (partly because global temperatures have been consistently warming for over 50 years) and the air we share has record-high levels of carbon in it.
We have taken ownership of the Earth and drained it of its resources. The Earth was never meant to be claimed for oneself; it was never meant to be commodified. It was never meant to be drained of oil to fill the pockets of wealthy CEOs. The Earth was meant to be shared by all its living beings. Similarly, humans were never meant to be in solitude. We were meant to live symbiotically with each other and with nature. Greed has divided us as one humanity; it murdered the Native American tribes and robbed the Earth of its biggest supporters. And I am afraid that Mother Nature might never accept our apology.
The Urdd and the IHR. Source: Institute for Human Rights.
by Sumaira Quraishi
On September 15th, 2023, the Institute for Human Rights (IHR) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and the Urdd, a Welsh youth organization, spent an afternoon together exploring human rights initiatives in Birmingham and the history of the Civil Rights Movement.
Dr. Tina Kempin Reuter, Director of the IHR, made opening remarks welcoming the Urdd delegation to UAB and facilitated introductions between the Urdd and members of the IHR team. Dr. Reuter then spoke on how the IHR is raising awareness of and advocating for human rights by making safe spaces to have open dialogues and hosting human rights advocacy conferences. Ms. Siân Lewis, Chief Executive of the Urdd, explained that the Urdd is the largest youth organization in the world and has been active for over 100 years. The Urdd’s primary objective is spreading a peace and goodwill message, with the focus this year being on anti-racism. The Urdd also aims to share the Welsh language and culture with others while learning about other languages and cultures around the world. The Urdd distinguishes itself in its anti-racism efforts through its “Galw Nhw Allan” (“Call Them Out”) motto, which encapsulates the Urdd’s desire to take substantive action against racism. In a video shown at the event, student leaders from the Urdd are shown describing the need to dismantle systemic racism through education to show the beauty and unity people’s differences bring to our communities.
Two members of IHR led the group in a privilege walk, an activity that involves asking participants to line up side-by-side with their eyes closed and take a step forward if they agree with certain statements, or take a step back if they agree with others. Examples of the statements read included “Take a step back if someone in your immediate family is addicted to alcohol or drugs,” “Take a step forward if you see people with your skin color in your local government,” and “Take a step back if you have ever had to skip a meal or multiple meals due to your financial situation.” At the end of the exercise, every person of color from the group was at the back of the room, and every non-person of color from the group was in the middle or front of the room. This exercise was done to highlight the various advantages and obstacles faced by people around the world and fostered a great discussion about diversity and inclusion amongst the IHR and the Urdd.
At the beginning of the meeting, members of the IHR handed out pieces of numbered paper to everyone in the meeting room. People with even numbers received a leaf to pin to their chest and people with odd numbers received a ribbon. After the privilege walk, everyone was asked to find a seat at tables decorated with pumpkins if they drew an odd number or tables decorated with scarecrows if they drew an even number. A short video on Jane Elliott’s “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” experiment was shown where Ms. Elliott divided her class by eye color and favored blue-eyed children one day, and brown-eyed children the next, giving each favored group more praise and privileges over the other group. The class soon adopted hateful and derogatory views of the out-group, bullying members of the unfavored group which was distinguished by brown collars tied around their necks. To simulate this experiment, two members of the IHR went around telling people with leaves pinned to their chests to get second helpings of lunch and engaging members of that group in conversation. Contrastly, the two IHR members ignored people with ribbons pinned to their chests and neglected to mention that those with ribbons could go and get second helpings of the food being served. The experiment was revealed after lunch was finished, to the surprise of the room which had no idea the simulation was being carried out. A short discussion followed on how discrimination affects people in real life and the unique challenges faced by people daily due to discrimination.
A tour of the IHR office space followed lunch and the Urdd delegation kindly presented IHR with a flag of Wales, a Cardiff University dragon plush, and Cardiff University silk scarves. Thank you to the Urdd for the thoughtful gifts!
The final event of the day was a screening of Four Little Girls directed by Spike Lee and a Q&A session with Michele Forman, Director of the Media Studies Program at UAB, who helped with the production of Four Little Girls. The film follows the events of the Civil Rights Movement in Birmingham, Alabama, and includes interviews with the families of the children killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963. In the Q&A session after the showing, Ms. Forman described how every aspect of the film needed to answer the question “How does it help us understand what happened to the girls that day?”. A particularly impactful statement from Ms. Forman when asked what the rationale for using post-mortem photographs of the four children killed in the bombing in the film was that the destruction and exploitation of the Black body are used too much in media, but it was needed in the film to show that we will not move on from this tragedy and will not forget “what racism comes to bear on the Black body.” Thank you to Michele Forman for facilitating an insightful discussion of the film and the Civil Rights Movement!
Victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. Source: Yahoo Images.
The IHR is grateful to have had the opportunity to connect with the Urdd and looks forward to future collaborations!
Watch the full Peace and Goodwill message video here.
In 1948, in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a landmark document outlining fundamental human rights that should be universally protected. Among its articles are rights to life, liberty, security, family unity, and asylum from persecution. While these principles are intended to apply universally, immigration policies worldwide often fall short of these ideals. The American immigration system, among others, has come under scrutiny for policies and practices that many argue are inconsistent with UDHR principles.
This blog post examines key areas where U.S. immigration policy diverges from the UDHR’s protections, highlighting the need for reform in pursuit of a fairer, more human-centered immigration system.
The Right to Asylum: A Challenge to UDHR Compliance
UDHR Article 14 states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The U.S. has historically been a beacon of hope for individuals fleeing war, persecution, and violence. However, recent policies have made it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to access the American legal system.
The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, exemplify these challenges. Under MPP, asylum seekers from Latin America are often required to wait in Mexico until their immigration hearings in the U.S., facing dangerous conditions and inadequate access to legal counsel. Reports by Human Rights Watch noted that many asylum seekers awaiting their hearings face violence, abuse, and severe lack of resources in border towns. This situation not only hinders asylum seekers’ right to a fair hearing but also disregards their basic safety—a violation of both Article 14 and Article 3, which promises everyone “the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”
Family Separation: Violating the Right to Family Unity
While the Biden administration has made efforts to reunite some families, the underlying issues persist. Prolonged detention of families in immigration facilities and inconsistent policies on reunification highlight a system that does not prioritize family unity, contradicting Article 16’s guarantee of family protection.
The Right to Liberty and Security of Person: Detention Practices
The U.S. immigration system has increasingly relied on detention as a standard response to undocumented migration, often holding individuals—including families and children—for extended periods in detention facilities. The conditions in many of these facilities have raised serious human rights concerns, particularly regarding overcrowding, lack of medical care, and poor sanitation.
UDHR Article 3 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Yet reports from organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) document cases where detainees have faced severe abuse and inadequate healthcare. A 2019 report by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General highlighted that detainees in some facilities were denied access to medical care, leading to cases of severe illness and even death. This over-reliance on detention and the documented neglect of detainee welfare starkly contradicts the UDHR’s provisions for humane treatment.
Economic Exploitation and the Right to Work
UDHR Article 23 enshrines the right to work, to free choice of employment, and to just and favorable conditions of work. However, undocumented immigrants in the U.S. often face exploitation in the labor market due to their legal status. They may be forced to work in unsafe conditions, for wages below the minimum standard, and without the protection of basic labor rights.
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) highlights that many undocumented workers are subject to labor abuses without the ability to report them, fearing deportation if they speak out.. This situation contravenes the UDHR’s guarantee of fair working conditions and underscores the vulnerability that arises from an immigration status that does not provide pathways to legal work authorization.
Rethinking Immigration for a Human Rights-Centered Future
The UDHR was crafted to embody the rights and dignity that every individual is entitled to, irrespective of nationality, legal status, or economic contribution. For the U.S., a nation that played a central role in the UDHR’s creation, upholding these principles within its immigration system would signify a commitment to its foundational values.
Reforming U.S. immigration policy to align with the UDHR would require shifts at every level: ensuring fair and accessible asylum procedures, ending family separation, prioritizing alternatives to detention, and protecting labor rights for all workers, regardless of immigration status. Such changes would not only bring the U.S. closer to the UDHR’s standards but also foster an immigration system that respects human dignity and acknowledges the inalienable rights of all individuals.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.
