policy – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

High-Income Countries Retreat from Rights-Based Policy

The General Assembly adopts a resolution on the 2025 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, which was also adopted concurrently by the Security Council, during the 51st plenary meeting of the General Assembly — The General Assembly adopts a resolution on the 2025 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. UN Photo/Loey Felipe

In recent years, we have seen high-income countries fail to uphold commitments by retreating from prior obligations to health and reversing environmental protections that were once collective imperatives. This reveals a broader pattern of countries abandoning formerly binding principles, treating equity and rights as lesser considerations. More than budgetary shifts, these movements reflect a widespread prioritization of trade, security, and short-term geopolitical advantage. The United States, with its expedited migration enforcement and aggressive international maritime operations, demonstrates how rights-centered diplomacy is undermined by deceptive national security prioritization (OHCHR 2025; Council on Foreign Relations 2025). Recent reporting on U.S. ‘drug boat’ strikes, which have condemned by the UN as illegal, further illustrates how security practices can erode international legal norms (The Independent 2025). These retreats from the rights-based approach to international relations signal a broader crisis of credibility in international commitments, where promises of fairness are increasingly subordinated to immediate political gain. This blog observes how foreign policy instruments are steering away from human rights and how external shifts cause domestic rollbacks in civil protections.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, is a foundational document that sets out 30 articles affirming universal rights and freedoms, establishing a global standard for dignity, equality, and justice (United Nations 1948). Similarly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the UN in 2015, are a set of 17 global targets designed to reduce inequality, strengthen institutions, and promote sustainable development worldwide (United Nations, 2015). These provide operational commitments and normative measures needed for international engagement – specifically SDG 10 on inequality and SDG 16 on inclusive institutions (United Nations, 2015). The European Union (EU) Charter and Council of Europe further specify obligations for rights-consistent external policies that member states are expected to honor (European Union 2012; Council of the European Union n.d.). Implementing these standards requires consultation with affected communities, funding for civil society partners, and independent impact assessment mechanisms that adjudicate trade‑offs between security, trade, and rights (American Bar Foundation 2023; Oxfam Novib & Oxfam International 2025). Without these mechanisms, performative politics obscure whether rights protections are effectively implemented (IOB 2024).

Hendrikus Wilhelmus Maria (Dick) Schoof, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session. UN Photo/Loey Felipe

Diplomacy and Foreign Policy

There are four primary indicators of rights retreat within current foreign policy:

Reallocations within national budgets have begun prioritizing short-term geopolitical goals over sustained rights-programming (IOB 2024).
Emerging trade and technology agreements have abandoned civil society concerns, instead including unenforceable measures for rights-fulfillment (UNCTAD 2025; European Commission 2024).
Governments have begun to shift migration discourse from protection to control at the expense of asylum safeguards (Beltran Saavedra et al., 2025).
Aid and cooperation conditions are no longer effective in leveraging compliance due to uneven application and enforcement (IOB 2024; Oxfam Novib & Oxfam International 2025).

More than abstract trends, these four indicators underscore shifts between discourse and practice. Each of these mechanisms is exemplified by the 2017-2022 evaluation of Dutch support to human rights (IOB 2024). The Dutch Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) (2024) found persistent gaps between rhetorical commitments and complete implementation. Budgetary shifts in this report show reduced or threatened funding for civil-society watchdogs and sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR). Barriers to sustained funding and coordination – in combination with fragmented national agendas on trade, migration, and security – produces contradictions which limit the effectiveness of rights clauses and undermine the durability of long-term human rights programming and international initiatives. The inconsistent application of rights-conditionality (the requirement that governments uphold human rights standards in exchange for aid or cooperation) and restricted civil-society consultation has signaled to grassroots actors that their role in policy creation is expendable (Douch et al., 2022). Rather than through outright rejection, these findings show retreats in rights-centered diplomacy through incremental reallocation of budgets away from civil-society and rights programming and incoherence across geopolitical agendas, such as trade, migration, and security agendas (Netherlands Helsinki Committee 2025).

The Dutch case shows how fragmented agendas and weakened accountability measures echo throughout multiple levels of international policy, allowing prior commitments to appear negotiable. Civil society actors warn that such shifts promote neighboring governments to follow suit, leading to a broader pattern of accountability problems (Netherlands Helsinki Committee 2025; Oxfam Novib & Oxfam International 2025). This retreat, which is in direct contradiction of the principles enshrined in the UDHR, SDGs, and EU charter, sets the stage for parallel erosions where domestic rights protections are at risk.

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session. — President of United States of America Addresses 80th Session of General Assembly Debate. UN Photo/Laura Jarriel

Rights and Domestic Policy

The impacts of international retrenchment – retreats from commitments to health, climate, and rights-based foreign policy – do not remain external. These withdrawals negatively affect domestic enforcement mechanisms and social expectations surrounding rights implementation. When multilateral agreements rapidly deprioritize rights, this becomes normalized, emboldening domestic governments to strip protections at home. This feedback loop allows weakened rights-focused diplomacy and domestic rights rollback to reinforce one another. This cycle not only weakens rights protections but also reshapes public expectations, making exclusionary practices appear normal and acceptable.

In the United States, coercive practices at home (such as accelerated removals of migrants and courthouse detentions of asylum seekers) demonstrate how isolationist attitudes abroad have begun to change acceptable federal action (UCLA Law Review 2023; OHCHR 2025). These practices are incentivized by orders that prioritize border control and the rapid returns of migrants to their countries of origin (or “safe third party” countries or countries with “deportation deals”) (The Olive Press, 2025; Democracy Now, 2025). This pushes agencies to expand detention, expedite cases, and limit court oversight, factors that weaken due process (UCLA Law Review 2023; UNHCR 2025). The US is not alone here; several high-income countries are seeing migration issues reframed as management problems. Tightened asylum processing, shorter appeal windows, and over-reliance on administrative solutions all lead to eroded procedural protections for non-citizens and displaced people (Beltran Saavedra et al. 2025; UNHCR 2025).

The stability of rights depends on institutional resources and sustained commitment. When supervision decreases, governments advance these restrictive agendas without restraint, leaving vulnerable populations unprotected (Herre & Arriagada 2025; ILGA‑Europe 2024). This leads to lower civic participation, polarized public spheres, and diminished capacity for collective problem solving (CivicPulse, 2025). These deficits weaken civic infrastructure and amplify exclusionary narratives (American Bar Foundation 2023). What begins as external retrenchment becomes an internal erosion of democratic resilience, hollowing out safeguards that once constrained state power and leaving societies more vulnerable to authoritarian appeals.

Reimagining Rights-Centered Diplomacy

High-income countries must recommit and reinvest to undo harm and re-embed rights in diplomacy. This will involve dedicated funding for civil society partners, binding impact assessments, and robust oversight mechanisms with procedural safeguards (IOB 2024; UNHCR, 2025). Domestic resilience requires enforcement of judicial review and sustained support for watchdog institutions that defend minority rights against political pressures (American Bar Foundation 2023). These reforms prioritize long-term protections and reinforce institutional infrastructure to withstand short-term pressures. This, along with the recommendations from the IOB (2024) evaluation, ensure that rights commitments remain operational and also restore local and global credibility. High-income countries are faced with two options: accept the continual loss of civic trust and democratic security or invest in durable institutions that can safeguard rights amid geopolitical volatility.

Rights and Regulations: A Case Study on Guidelines for AI Use in Education

Based on my previous two articles, a reader of this blog might assume that I’m an advocate for the complete eradication of Artificial Intelligence, given the many criticisms I’ve made of the AI industry. While you shouldn’t expect these critiques to stop on my end, I also accept the fact that AI has effectively taken over the technological world and will not easily be vanquished. Therefore, a more realistic approach to keeping AI within acceptable bounds is regulating its use. This regulation is especially imperative when it comes to our nation’s youth. Their human right to quality education centered on tolerance and respect should not be infringed upon by generative AI use.

That is why programs addressing AI literacy and guidelines on its use in schools are so essential. The Alaska Department of Education’s Strategic Framework on AI use in the classroom, released in October 2025, outlines strategies on safe, responsible, and ethical AI integration in K-12 schools. Alaska is merely the latest state to adopt guidelines for AI use in public schools; a total of 27 states and Puerto Rico have established such policies. Today, I’ll be concentrating on Alaska’s framework as a case study to explore the value in creating state and local guidelines on the education on and use of AI in the classroom.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

In April of this year, an executive order was signed promoting AI competency in students and establishing a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education. In response, the U.S. Department of Education has released potential priorities for grants funding the integration of AI into education: “evidence-based literacy, expanding education choice, and returning education to the states”. While these statements are an encouraging acknowledgement of the need to turn our attention to the use of Artificial Intelligence in academia, they fail to provide tangible guidelines or policies that effectively promote the proper use of AI in schools. These statements also fall short of acknowledging the need for regulation and limitations on AI’s role in academia; in fact, “America’s AI Action Plan” highlights the administration’s aversion towards regulation by providing that states should not have access to federal funding on AI-related matters should they implement “burdensome AI regulations.”

STATE-LEVEL POLICIES

The federal government’s failure to acknowledge AI’s limitations when it comes to privacy, ethics, and functionality in education creates a vacuum devoid of guidelines or regulations on AI’s educational use. A lack of parameters has raised concerns about academic misconduct, plagiarism, privacy breaches, algorithmic bias, and the dogmatic acceptance of generated information that may be inaccurate or unreliable. Complete bans fail to address AI’s potential when used responsibly and create environments where students find new and creative ways to access generative AI despite the ban.

Thankfully, states are beginning to recognize the need to fill the void to maintain the quality and safety of children’s education. Alaska’s Department of Education answered this call by providing its K-12 AI Framework document, which provides “recommendations and considerations for districts” to guide their school districts’ Artificial Intelligence policies and guide educators on how to treat AI use in their classes.

A metal placard on a building reads "Department of Education" — Adobe Stock, D Howe Photograph #244617523

These guidelines serve to “augment human capabilities,” educating students on how to maintain critical thinking and creativity while employing generative AI in their studies. This purpose is supported by the following guiding principles for AI Integration outlined in the framework; these principles serve as building blocks for fostering a positive relationship between students and generative AI, educating about its limitations while highlighting how it can be used properly. To take a human-rights based approach to highlighting the value of these principles, I’ll be providing specific human rights that each guideline works to preserve.

ARTICLE 27

Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) establishes the right to enjoy scientific advancements as well as the protection of ownership over one’s scientific, literary, or artistic creations. Alaska’s AI Guideline provides for a human-centered approach to AI integration, emphasizing that districts should move beyond banning generative AI while adopting initiatives to ensure AI enriches human capabilities rather than replaces them. This ensures that students have access to the scientific advancement of generative Artificial Intelligence without diminishing the quality of their education. The “Fair Access” aspect of Alaska’s framework outlines additional provisions for ensuring students have equal access to AI-based technological advancements. It calls for allocating funding dedicated to accessible Internet and AI access, as well as implementing an AI literacy program within school districts.

A boy looks at a computer monitor, generating an AI image. — Adobe Stock, Framestock
#1684797252

Additionally, the “Transparency” and “Ethical Use” principles provide that AI generated content should be properly attributed and disclosed. Citations are a requirement under these guidelines, and any work completed entirely by generative AI is considered plagiarism. This maintains the right to ownership over one’s creations by ensuring that generative AI and the data it pulls from are properly attributed.

ARTICLE 26

Article 26 of the UDHR codifies the right to education that promotes tolerance for other groups and respect for fundamental freedoms and rights. Alaska’s AI framework calls for recognition of generative AI’s potential algorithmic biases against certain ethnic, racial, or religious groups. It states that students should be educated about the prejudices, misinformation, and hallucinations a generative AI model may produce, emphasizing that its outputs must be critically examined. By overtly acknowledging the manifestation of societal prejudices in these algorithms, Alaska’s guidelines preserve the human right to uphold dignity and respect for others within education. This requires the inclusion of diverse local stakeholders such as students, parents, and community leaders in discussions and policymaking regarding AI regulations in the classroom, which the guideline provides suggestions for.

ARTICLE 12 and ARTICLE 3

The final human rights Alaska’s framework works to uphold are outlined in Article 3 and Article 12 of the UDHR, which state the right to security of person and privacy, respectively. The AI Framework establishes that student data protection and digital well-being are essential to maintain and educate on. It highlights a responsibility on the districts to support cybersecurity efforts and compliance with federal privacy laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Children’s Internet Protection Act. Schools also have an obligation to review the terms of service and privacy policies of any AI tools used in classrooms to ensure students’ data is not abused. Educators also should teach their students how to protect their personally identifiable information and the consequences of entering sensitive information into generative AI tools.

A page in a book reads "FERPA, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act" — Adobe Stock, Vitalii Vodolazskyi
#179067778

WHAT’S NEXT

Alaska’s framework is only an example of a wider trend of states adopting guidelines on Artificial Intelligence’s role in education. These regulations ensure that students, educators, and stakeholders acknowledge the limitations and potential of AI while implementing it in a way that serves human ingenuity rather than replacing it. These guidelines go only so far when implemented locally, though. We must civically engage with local school boards, individual school administrations, educators, and communities to ensure these helpful guidelines are properly abided by. Frameworks like Alaska’s provide sample policies for school boards to enact and provide examples of school handbook language that can be employed to preserve human rights in the face of AI expansion; all it takes is local support and implementation to push these policies into action. Community training and panels could be utilized to start conversations between families, students, community members and AI policymakers and experts.

As individuals, it is our place to engage in these community efforts. And if you’re a student reading this, take Alaska’s frameworks on guiding AI use in education into consideration the next time you’re thinking about using ChatGPT on an assignment. From plagiarism to biases to security, there’s good reason to tread carefully and emphasize a responsible approach to AI use that doesn’t encourage over-reliance but rather serves as a helping hand.

Tackling Tuberculosis in Pakistan

In the cold winter of Punjab, Pakistan, we see families spending their weekends with their families and loved ones. However, this was a different day for Adnan Saeed and Rizwan Saeed. Traveling around an hour to Faisalabad Pakistan, they spent their day waiting in line for a promise: a tuberculosis screening and test. Amongst tens of other women, men, and children, they waited patiently in line to get an opportunity for clarity. Adnan’s brother had unfortunately passed away which made this personal; getting clarity for a test about his symptoms will help him improve his outcomes.

His story is one of many. Camps, hosted by Mercy Corps or other humanitarian organizations, help mobilize care to people living in the most underrepresented areas of Pakistan. As a way to provide community-focused care, women, children, and the elderly can bypass barriers to care and receive the information needed to change their health outcomes. These camps serve everyone, free of charge; as trusted entities in the community, working in collaboration with teachers and religious leaders, they are able to elicit sustainable change. The need for these camps represent an unmet need in the country and the burden of tuberculosis.

What is Tuberculosis?

Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious bacterial infection that primarily impacts the lungs. This disease is preventable and treatable, but it remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide. This burden impacts many different countries, but it has an especially heavy burden on Pakistan. As of 2021, Pakistan ranks 6th in the world for the most TB cases. The country itself has an overburdened health system and widespread poverty; this fuels the current public health crisis, impacting the most vulnerable.

One intervention that can possibly combat TB is Directly Observed Therapy (DOT), where healthcare providers supervise their patients while they are taking their medicine. This helps improve adherence long term. Despite its proven success, DOT is implemented in only 3% of clinics in Pakistan, compared to 25% of clinics in India. By working to expand DOT through the region, treatment adherence would improve significantly.

The Impact of TB

TB is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis and has particularly severe outcomes for immunocompromised individuals. Alarmingly, two-thirds of the global TB burden is concentrated in the Eastern Mediterranean region, with Pakistan at the center. With 1.5 million people in Pakistan living with TB currently, and over 500,000 TB cases each year, there is reason for concern

In the context of TB, multidrug-resistant (MD) TB impacts many — around 15,000 patients annually to be exact, making Pakistan the 5th highest in the world for MDR. Without interventions like DOT being easily accessible to the most vulnerable, poor adherence is practically guaranteed, which further drives this issue.

The Most Vulnerable: Whom TB Impacts

TB does not discriminate, as it is a viral disease. However, some groups are disproportionately burdened by TB. Upending global trends, women in Pakistan account for slightly more cases than men. This is the result of social stigma discouraging women from seeking healthcare which then compounds disparities and further delays treatment.

In Pakistan’s Dir Valley, the disease is prevalent among those who are 21-40 years old. Oftentimes, TB spreads due to social factors like workplace contact and urban environment. The general trend across the world is that those living below the poverty line experience greater prevalence rates compared to others.

Beyond demographic factors, geography impacts the distribution of the disease in Pakistan. Punjab accounts for 51% of cases of Multi Drug Resistance (MDR) TB, followed by Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Punjab’s dense population and industrial landscape foster conditions that accelerate TB transmission.

Male and Female Participants setting on chairs in a Hall of a local hotel listening lectures of experts regarding TB control awareness campaign.Source: Flickr — Male and Female Participants setting on chairs in a Hall of a local hotel listening lectures of experts regarding TB control awareness campaign.
Source: Ground Report on Flickr

Risk Factors for TB

There are many risk factors that drive TB in Pakistan. This ranges from urbanization to poverty; considering the latter, around 20% of the population is living under poverty. This results in many individuals not having access to sanitation, ventilation, nor adequate access to housing, all driving TB development.

Biological factors also contribute to the development of TB; research suggests that having diabetes can double the risk of TB. This is key for Pakistan as around 26% of adults in Pakistan have diabetes, which presents as a comorbidity that further worsens TB outcomes.

Acting Now

TB has a negative financial impact in Pakistan, as well. Economically, the cost of TB is staggering. In the US, treatment for one patient can cost up to USD $ 23,000, including medical care and follow-ups. Prevention, in contrast, can cost as little as USD $17. This treatment cost can close off opportunities for the patient and their families. In Nigeria, around a 24.9% income loss is reported for many households who have a TB patient; for an already vulnerable family, this expands their financial hardships and puts them in a position of vulnerability.

In order to address TB in Pakistan, DOT needs to be mobilized effectively. Through subsidies for private collaborations with companies, while concurrently increasing educational campaigns, DOT can be mobilized through the entire country. By not only improving patient outcomes, but motivating conversations around normalizing prevention resources, scaling up TB prevention and intentional treatment would ameliorate the TB crisis. Working to support TB control in Pakistan can accelerate international progress in addressing TB and reducing its negative impact, promoting the human right to health for all.

Why Utah’s Criminal Justice Task Force Must Include Public Health Voices

In 2016, Madison Jensen spent four days in jail, incarcerated at the Duchesne County Jail. During this time, she spent time pleading for care and support. Her incarceration, requested by her parents, ended with her death. Her initial booking was on suspicion of heroin and marijuana possession. Upon the release of her from a hospital emergency room, she was placed into Duchesne County Jail. With hopes of being protected by the county and supported through such a horrendous time, she was faced with what appears to be negligence.

Investigators found that during the four days she was incarcerated, she was projectile vomiting in her cell; even with reports from fellow inmates, the county did not take any action. From her booking to her unfortunate passing, her health condition decreased rapidly; over the time period, she lost 40 pounds. Despite her condition, no action was taken. She had completed a handwritten medical request citing her symptoms, but she was met with silence. Even when her cellmate tried to usher the officials into the cell to help mobilize a solution, she was met with silence.

During the investigation, it was noted that despite significant notices, there was limited information tracked; this is amplified by the lack of uniform guidelines that legislate how agencies and the incarceration system should track and release information related to inmate deaths. The jury awarded Madison’s family a $15 million verdict upon the conclusion that the county and jail staff were liable for her death. While this case was resolved in court, Madison’s death is representative of a larger issue: frequently inadequate healthcare access in correctional facilities.

Utah and Its Changes

As the nation is changing, especially relating to perspectives about criminal justice, states are taking a very different approach to their goals to tackle justice and healthcare issues. One state that has a new approach to this is Utah.

Utah has recently developed the Utah State Legislature’s Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee. This is a group tasked with overseeing the framework for Utah’s new Criminal Justice Task Force and reviewing dozens of bills that propose adding or expanding criminal penalties. This committee contains 18 legislators: 13 Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 1 Forward Party member. While most of them support the formation of this task force, many of these individuals do not have any experience in criminal justice or public health. This matters for human rights, because access to healthcare is a right for all individuals, as outlined by the United Nations.

In Utah, the landscape of incarceration is changing. Since 1980, arrests in Utah increased by 63%, with drug-related offenses spiking by an astonishing 317%. More arrests does not necessarily correlate to more incarcerated individuals, but the rate of incarceration in Utah is 396 per 100,000, which is higher than almost any other democratic country. Behind these numbers are women with complex healthcare needs, shaped by trauma and systemic neglect. More than 85% of incarcerated women in Utah report experiencing physical or sexual abuse prior to incarceration.

As the number of inmates rises, access to timely medical care becomes less available. This amplifies health risks and further deepens the cycle of trauma. These problems have further been amplified by overcrowding in prisons.

Photo 1: Photo of Central Utah Corrections CenterSource: Wikimedia Commons — Photo 1: Photo of Central Utah Corrections Center
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Maternal Care Behind Bars

All of this presents a unique challenge for women, specifically with access to maternal care in jails. Utah, however, has been making progress on this front to improve the public health outcomes for women who are pregnant. Legislation like HB326 brought much-needed improvements to prenatal care for incarcerated women. Before this bill, pregnancy behind bars often meant increased risks of premature birth, low birth weight, and labor complications: outcomes that carry lifelong consequences for both mothers and their children.

This progress is beneficial, but isolated wins are not enough.

Public Health Integration

Poor inmate health has a ripple effect beyond prison. Inmates are often released, and when women return home, they often become key contributors to their families and communities. When their health is neglected, this can result in generational consequences that feed cycles of poverty, mental health crises, and instability.

The issue is not colorblind, either; underrepresented races are overrepresented in negative health outcomes generally in correctional facilities. Black, American Indian, and Hispanic women in Utah are disproportionately incarcerated at higher rates than their white counterparts. This exposes them to increased healthcare inequities.

As the Criminal Justice Task Force develops, the Utah Department of Public Health needs to have a seat at the table. This will increase the likelihood that women will receive the healthcare they deserve whilst incarcerated. This intersects explicitly with human rights, as it expands healthcare access; by working to mobilize key resources to those who need it most, inequalities are addressed in the most efficient manner, which allows for improved health outcomes. Although health is not defined as a right by the US Constitution, it is a human right as delineated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Prioritizing Human Dignity

Understanding the nuances of health as it intersects with incarceration is integral to improving maternal health outcomes across the state. This issue presents at the intersection of compassionate and strategic approaches. As better healthcare is provided, emergency service costs decrease, there are lower rates of recidivism, and medical crises decline. If the Criminal Justice Task Force incorporates public health experts, there will be improved health outcomes for the most vulnerable inmates.

High-Income Countries Retreat from a Healthy Environment

Secretary-General António Guterres (right) meets with King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

Introduction

Global efforts aim to achieve net-zero CO₂ and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). However, current national policies remain misaligned with this goal, with trends in several high-income countries falling short of necessary reductions (Climate Action Tracker, 2023). For example, Sweden, once a leader in climate control and environmental justice, is now retreating from its commitments. The 2024 report by the Swedish Climate Policy Council shows that recent decisions reflect a de-prioritization of national climate goals (Swedish Climate Policy Council, 2024). Meanwhile, mounting pressures to accelerate the fossil fuel phase-out at the 29^th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) were met with diplomatic compromises that failed to commit to a full phase-out, disappointing many climate advocates (Carlin, 2024). These are not isolated developments. They signal an increasing pattern of high-income countries placing domestic economic and geopolitical priorities over environmental rights. As climate risks escalate, these decisions reflect a strategic withdrawal from global responsibility.

Legal Foundations of Environmental Justice

The right to a healthy environment is more than an aspirational claim; it is deeply rooted in international human rights law. In 1948, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirmed the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing (United Nations, 1948). Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further codified this right in 1966, obligating states actors to seek improvement in “all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene” (United Nations, 1966). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the World Health Organization (WHO) jointly issued General Comment No. 14 in 2008, clarifying that the right to health is directly undermined by environmental degradation and must be addressed through preventative action (OHCHR & WHO, 2008).

These legal foundations, as mirrored in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), conclusively link environmental protection to human dignity and global equity. The SDGs – specifically (3) good health and well-being, (6) clean water and sanitation, (13) climate action, and (16) peace, justice, and strong institutions – reinforce the technical and practical dimensions of environmental rights (United Nations, 2015; OHCHR, n.d.). The United Nations General Assembly added to this evolving legal architecture through Resolution 76/300, which formally recognizes the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as “crucial to the enjoyment of all human rights” (United Nations General Assembly, 2022). In combination, these mechanisms establish environmental rights as enforceable obligations, central to global equity and intergenerational justice.

Policy Shifts

Faltering climate ambition echoes across the G20, the forum of world economies that coordinate global economic policy. Their 2025 declaration failed to reaffirm the 1.5°C target, reflecting a collective failure to meet Paris Agreement goals (Joint Research Centre, 2025). Just weeks after 2024 was declared the hottest year on record, the United States formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement for a second time (Human Rights Watch, 2025). Shortly after, Argentina announced plans to exit the agreement and withdrew from COP29 negotiations (Climate Cosmos, 2025). While Argentina is not classified as a high-income country, this action still denotes a further weakening of global consensus. Several other G20 countries (Australia, Japan, Canada, Italy, and South Korea) have backed out of previous net-zero pledges and multilateral obligations through delayed climate targets, reclassified fossil fuels, and suspended mitigation policies (Climate Cosmos, 2025). The United States has also seen significant cuts to climate research and clean energy programs, discontinuing more than 100 federally funded studies (Temple, 2025).

The United Kingdom, another former leader in this field, has directed funds away from climate action and toward defense and trade priorities (United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office [UK FCDO], 2025). In April of 2025, a group of civil society organizations filed a case against the French government for failing to protect citizens from foreseeable climate harms, claiming that current adaptation plans are insufficient (Jones Day, 2025). Germany’s government, while continuing to support renewable energy, has deprioritized emissions reductions in favor of industrial competitiveness (Clean Energy Wire, 2025).

These shifts in government focus are not limited to the public sector. Many of the corporations that made net-zero pledges within the past five years have begun scaling back efforts due to political and financial pressure. Major financial institutions have classified ESG backlash as a material risk, leading companies to scale back climate commitments (Conference Board, 2025). ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is a set of criteria historically used to evaluate corporate sustainability and ethics; however, it is now criticized by conservative lawmakers and skeptical investors as politically charged or financially burdensome (Conference Board, 2025). Ioannou (2025) notes that this new backlash reflects deeper tensions surrounding corporations in the advancement of social and environmental goals. A deeper ideological repositioning can be seen through these developments. While climate justice was once a collective imperative, it is now being treated as a negotiable interest, shaped by national politics and short-term economic goals.

Secretary-General António Guterres at the Climate Summit 2025, a high-Level special event on Climate Action. “The science demands action. The law commands it. The economics compel it. And people are calling for it.” UN Photo/Manuel Elías.

Implications and Consequences

These policy shifts have tangible and far-reaching human consequences. As inaction continues, the risk of compounding impacts onto other human rights increases. The right to housing and security is threatened by rising climate-related displacement (Amnesty International, 2025). The right to food is at risk due to extreme weather events disrupting agricultural systems (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2025). Overall, health and well-being continue to be threatened by rising air pollution, heat stress, and vector-borne diseases (Romanello et al., 2025).

Low- to middle-income countries and Indigenous communities are disproportionately impacted, despite contributing less to climate change overall. For instance, aid cuts by Australia and the UK fail to support vulnerable nations and regional populations, limiting their ability to protect lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems (Lowy Institute, 2024; UK FCDO, 2025). This undermines the moral and legal obligations enshrined in UNGA Resolution 76/300 and the ICESCR, which have been ratified by both countries (United Nations, 1966; United Nations General Assembly, 2022).

With climate disasters escalating in frequency and severity, high-income countries are not immune to the consequences of their retreat. From wildfires in Australia and floods in Germany to storms and heatwaves in the United States, public infrastructure and economies have been strained, revealing critical gaps in disaster preparedness (Pengilley, 2025; Clean Energy Wire, 2025; Climate Central, 2025).

Aside from immediate and prolonged dangers, these events erode public trust in environmental governance. As citizens see governments scale back their climate commitments, they turn to litigation and civil disobedience to demand accountability. Globally, youth-led lawsuits have surged in 2025, seeing plaintiffs invoke their constitutional and human rights to challenge state action/inaction (Merner, 2025; Environmental Health News, 2025). Not only does this challenge the moral authority of high-income countries, but it undermines their credibility and weakens their capacity to lead on broader global challenges. Such a withdrawal is not only unjust from a human rights standpoint, but strategically shortsighted.

A view of pamphlets during the event “International Day of Sport for Development and Peace 2023: Scoring for People and the Planet”. UN Photo/Mark Garten.

Closing Reflection

More than symbolic pledges, environmental justice requires enforceable obligations, consistent funding for climate action, and consideration for the most impacted communities. High-income countries must stop viewing climate action as a zero-sum trade-off and reframe it through a shared, rights-based infrastructure of resilience. The consequences from previous retreats, from displacement to institutional erosion, must be urgently addressed. Rebuilding public trust must begin with global recommitments, inclusive governance, and transparent financing. Meeting today’s demands will require high-income countries to abandon performative pragmatism for principled action. Climate justice is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for global survival.

High-Income Countries Retreat from Global Health

President Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting, Wednesday, February 26, 2025, in the Cabinet Room. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Introduction

In favor of focusing on domestic economic recovery, migration control, and new geopolitical strategy, high-income countries are overlooking global health in their reprioritized foreign aid plans (Nain, 2025). This retreat from investing in global health displays a departure from historically fundamental moral and legal obligations to global health and human rights. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the right to health has been codified as a shared responsibility. However, recent policy changes suggest a breakdown in multilateral obligations. The blog seeks to explore the ideological and structural consequences of this retreat, asking what does it mean when global health is no longer treated as a collective imperative, but as a negotiable interest?

Historical Context

More than mere technical interventions, global health has a history of moral and legal obligations rooted in human rights. The right to health, as enshrined in Article 25 of the UDHR, affirms that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family” (United Nations, 1948). This was further codified in Article 12 of the ICESCR through the obligation of state actors to act toward “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases,” as well as the “creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness” (United Nations, 1966; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights & World Health Organization, 2008). Scholars and practitioners over the past two decades have asserted global health to be rights-based and participatory (Meier & Gostin, 2018; Gostin & Meier, 2020). Additionally, Mulumba et al. (2025) argue that enforceable commitments from high-income countries are essential to the global realization of the right to health. Despite these observations, recent trends suggest a troubling retreat from these shared responsibilities.

Delegates from Netherlands looking at documents at AMR conference — Rene Verleg Fotografie
10 February 2016, 09:02 AMR conference – Ministers Schippers & van Dam EU2016 NL from The Netherlands

Policy Shifts

A series of global health funding cuts, including a 67% reduction from the United States in 2025, has disrupted various health programs including those surrounding HIV, tuberculosis, and maternal health across dozens of countries (Krugman, 2025). Similarly, the United Kingdom instituted an aid reduction of 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income by 2027, most severely impacting sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) (Parker & Garcia, 2021). Through the Mattei Plan, Italy restructured its aid to prioritize migration control and energy diplomacy, which reduced bilateral health programming by 26% (Donor Tracker, 2025). Canada, despite earlier commitments to scale SRHR investments, paused new global health funding in 2024, claiming to instead be prioritizing domestic equity (Global Affairs Canada, 2024). Australia deprioritized health programs through a $500 million cut from its Indo-Pacific aid portfolio in favor of strategic infrastructure and defense partnerships (Stanhope, 2024).

Citing “shifting national priorities,” the Netherlands withdrew support from SRHR, LGBTQIA+, and harm reduction programs (Meier & Gostin, 2018). Norway reduced its aid by 5% in 2024, drastically impacting emergency relief and support for low- to middle-income countries (Norad, 2025). Revising its Development Cooperation Charter to align foreign aid with national security, Japan launched Official Security Assistance (OSA) and shifted focus from multilateral health to defense and tech diplomacy (International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2024).

Germany and France have reallocated development funds toward trade competitiveness, migration control, and domestic security (Parker & Garcia, 2021). Germany, despite remaining a top donor to the World Health Organization (WHO), has adopted a transactional posture that has subordinated health to economic and geopolitical interests (Bayerlein, 2025; Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2025). Similarly, France launched a new Global Health Strategy and co-hosted the WHO’s Investment Round but cut global health aid by 33% amid domestic budget strain (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024; World Health Organization, 2025a; Krugman, 2025).

Spain and South Korea complicate this trend through selective engagement rather than full high-income country retreat. South Korea reaffirmed its leadership through strategic dialogue with the WHO, and Spain launched a new Global Health Strategy in 2025 (World Health Organization, 2024a; World Health Organization, 2024b; Donor Tracker, 2024). Despite these efforts, both countries have simultaneously recalibrated foreign policy toward economic security and technology diplomacy (Lee, 2024; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain, 2025).

These are more than fiscal shifts in a world of economies. They reflect a deeper ideological repositioning. Many governments increasingly justify aid reductions through a “domestic-first” standpoint that frames global health as competing priority with national economic recovery, rather than as a complementary one (Center for Development, 2025). Others prioritize defense, trade, and migration over health equity as a geopolitical strategy. This logic is echoed across the philanthropic sector, where the Gates Foundation’s 25-year sunset plan embodies a transition from broad global health engagement to a finite, legacy-oriented agenda (Gates Foundation, 2025; Shefcik, 2025). This recalibration, framed as a pivot toward “achievable” goals, reflects the broader trend of donor fatigue and feasibility framing. This trend suggest that global health priorities are now shaped by power asymmetries, short-term metrics, and political expediency rather than solidarity across shared interests (Abimbola, 2021).

Human Rights Implications

We have already begun to feel the consequences of these shifts. UNAIDS (2025) warns of the impact felt in countries like Tanzania and Uganda, which have seen closures and disruption in HIV clinics and other essential services. These disruptions, as documented by Physicians for Human Rights (2025), threaten to reverse decades of progress in HIV prevention and treatment. UN agencies are also warning that gains in preventable death reduction from maternal health programs could be lost (World Health Organization, 2025b). These disruptions disproportionately affect marginalized populations and violate core human rights obligations (Meier & Gostin, 2018; Gostin & Meier, 2020; UNRIC, 2025). The WHO has reported that over 70% of surveyed countries are experiencing similar health system breakdowns due to aid withdrawals (World Health Organization, 2025c). These outcomes show the severe impacts of eroded accountability measures within global health governance (Parker & Garcia, 2021).

One of the signs at the main entrance to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) offices being taped over on February 7, 2025. This is on the west side of the Ronald Reagan Building. 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
7 February 2025, 12:54:26 http://edwardjohnson.com/ G. Edward Johnson

Domestic Consequences

High-income countries are not exempt from the consequences of the retreat from global health. Parker and Garcia (2021) argue that isolationist health policies create blind spots that leave even wealthy nations vulnerable to transnational threats. Weakened pandemic preparedness, undermined surveillance systems, and limited coordinated response capacity are all side effects of reduced engagement (Bond, 2025). Perhaps more significantly, the public is experiencing a breakdown of trust in health institutions. Amid a growing crisis of confidence in public health leadership, calls for renewed efforts to restore institutional legitimacy are on the rise (Leslie, 2023; Cooper, 2025). Withdrawing from global health commitments not only abandons vulnerable populations globally but also compromises the moral leadership and resilience of high-income countries.

Closing Reflection

Beyond restored funding, a reorientation of values is necessary for a rights-based recommitment to global health. This requires the abandonment of performative pragmatism for enforceable obligations to solidarity and justice. It demands the centering of marginalized voices, the rebuilding of institutional trust, and the recognition of global health as a shared infrastructure of resilience, rather than a zero-sum game of political maneuvering. The consequences of this retreat – from disrupted HIV clinics to weakened pandemic preparedness – must be confronted as we forge a new path rooted in justice. Furthermore, for a more equitable and secure world, it is a strategic imperative that we reclaim global health as a human right.

Marriage, Inequality, and Human Rights: Rethinking a Cultural Norm 

As a philosophy student, I find the debate around marriage fascinating because it’s something almost everyone has personal experience with—whether through their own relationships, family, or society at large. On the surface, marriage might seem like a simple institution built on love and commitment, but when we dig deeper, we start to see cracks in its foundation. 

Marriage has long been regarded as a cornerstone of social life, providing structure for intimate relationships, legal benefits, and a framework for raising children. But as legal scholars and human rights advocates have increasingly pointed out, marriage also functions as a gatekeeper to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and it does not serve everyone equally. This raises serious ethical questions: Does marriage reinforce systemic inequality, particularly for women and non-traditional families? Is it time to reform, replace, or abandon it altogether? In this blog, we’ll explore three contemporary philosophical arguments about marriage and their implications for justice and human rights. 

Susan Okin: Marriage Makes Women Vulnerable

Susan Okin argues that marriage, as it exists today, creates and reinforces gender-based vulnerabilities, particularly for women. In Vulnerability by Marriage, she explores how society expects women to take on most of the caregiving responsibilities, which leads to an unfair division of labor both at home and in the workplace.  

According to the American Time Use Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2022, women spent an average of 2.4 hours per day on household activities, compared to 1.5 hours for men. Women were also far more likely to provide unpaid caregiving for children and elderly family members. Even in so-called egalitarian households, studies show that men’s careers tend to take priority, affecting decisions about where to live and how to divide time and resources. 

A woman overwhelmed during a tense office meeting. Her head is down and people are yelling at her. — Image 2: An overwhelming woman in a workplace. Source: Yahoo Images.

These patterns have real economic consequences. Women who step back from paid work to care for children often experience long-term wage penalties and loss of retirement savings. After divorce, the gender wealth gap becomes even more stark. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that women’s household income fell by 41% after divorce, compared to just 23% for men. 

Okin’s critique points to a larger human rights issue: economic dependency can limit women’s autonomy and political participation. Without systemic support, such as paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, or equitable divorce laws, marriage remains a structural disadvantage for many women. 

Laurie Shrage: Should the State Be Involved in Marriage at All?

In her piece, The End of Marriage, Laurie Shrage takes Okin’s critique even further. Rather than just reforming marriage to be more equitable, she questions the role of the State in structuring intimate relationships. Shrage argues that marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution, provides legal and social privileges to some relationships while marginalizing others. If you’re married, you get tax breaks, easier access to healthcare, and legal rights over your partner’s well-being. But what about people in non-traditional relationships, cohabiting partners, or polyamorous families that don’t fit into the legal mold? 

Consider this: The U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. But for unmarried partners—even those in long-term caregiving relationships—those same protections are often unavailable. This creates a system of legal exclusion that disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals, lower-income families, and those outside traditional family structures. 

Shrage does not argue that the state should entirely remove itself from intimate relationships. Instead, she believes the law should be restructured so that protections and benefits are not solely tied to marriage. Instead of privileging marriage, we could develop alternative legal structures that support all kinds of caregiving relationships without requiring people to fit into a specific mold. Some states have made attempts to implement this. For instance, Colorado’s Designated Beneficiary Agreements allow individuals to assign rights such as hospital visitation or inheritance without marriage. Yet these reforms are patchwork and often limited in scope. 

Scissors cutting through a marriage contract — Image 3: Restructuring the Institute of Marriage. Source: Yahoo Images.

Shrage’s argument forces us to rethink what marriage actually does. If it’s primarily about securing legal and financial benefits, then why should it be tied to romantic relationships at all? Shouldn’t anyone be able to create binding legal partnerships that reflect their chosen family structures? Shrage proposes an alternative: decoupling legal benefits from marital status. Legal agreements could allow individuals to designate financial partners, medical proxies, or co-parents without needing a state-sanctioned marriage. By ensuring equal access to legal protections regardless of relationship type, we could create a system that better serves the diverse ways people build their lives together. 

Claudia Card: Tear It All Down

While Okin and Shrage suggest ways to reform or restructure marriage, Claudia Card takes a more radical approach in Against Marriage and Motherhood. She argues that marriage is not merely flawed but fundamentally coercive—and often serves as a mechanism for control and abuse. 

One of Card’s most powerful arguments is that marriage can trap individuals in violent or exploitative relationships. Because marriage is a legal contract that binds two people together, leaving an abusive marriage often requires legal intervention—something that can be expensive, slow, and emotionally exhausting. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey by the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men have experienced severe intimate partner violence. Due to financial dependency and legal entanglement, many people find it difficult to leave abusive marriages. A 2020 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that economic abuse, like controlling access to money or employment, was a key barrier to leaving. In many cases, the legal system inadvertently works to sustain abusive relationships by making it harder for the abused partner to leave, which is the fundamental reason why Card believes marriage, in any form, is beyond repair.   

A sad child looks at the camera as her distressed parents sit behind her — Image 4: A visual representation of the harms marriage can bring. Source: Yahoo Images.

Additionally, Card critiques the cultural glorification of motherhood. While motherhood is often idealized, mothers in the U.S. face one of the highest unpaid caregiving burdens in the developed world. The U.S. is the only wealthy country without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Women, especially single mothers, are left to shoulder the costs of caregiving without adequate support, leading to heightened rates of poverty, stress, and burnout. 

Card’s radical proposal—to abolish marriage as a legal institution—calls for building new social structures based on mutual care and autonomy rather than control and dependency. From a human rights standpoint, her argument challenges us to rethink whether any institution should have the power to limit freedom, security, or self-determination.

Where Do We Go From Here?

In philosophy, we often come back to the same fundamental question: Should we work within the system to make it more just, or should we tear it down and start over? Okin, Shrage, and Card each offer different visions for the future of marriage, but they all agree on one thing—the way things are now isn’t working. 

At its core, the debate about marriage is a human rights issue. Who gets access to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and at what cost? And marriage laws don’t just reinforce inequality for adults; they also impact vulnerable populations in ways we rarely acknowledge. For example, child marriage remains legal in parts of the U.S.—a reality that raises serious ethical concerns. 

Our three authors all highlight different ways in which marriage has historically marginalized certain groups, particularly women, and ask us to consider alternative frameworks that promote justice and equality. Whether through reforming marriage, removing state involvement, or abandoning it altogether, the goal should be to ensure that all individuals—regardless of their relationship status—have equal rights, protection, and autonomy. As we continue to challenge traditional norms, we must prioritize human dignity, fairness, and inclusivity in the ways we structure relationships and social institutions. 

Digital Citizenship: The Good, The Bad, & The Role of the Internet

Picture of hand in a web of technological devices — Communication Internet, by Pixabay, Creative Commons

In the early history of democracies, political voting was inherently simple: it was the communication of approval or disapproval of policies, platforms, and so on. Dissention was normal, but the partisan politics we are familiar with today were almost nonexistent. Issues that one politician had with another’s proposal were addressed in a direct, timely manner. In terms of the general public, everyone was essentially getting the same information via the same means – the printed press. This meant everyone was getting the same information at the same time; there may have been differences in interpretations, but everyone was reading the same headline as their neighbor. Today, we have thousands of media vying for our attention on many topics, especially politics. Whether from CNN, MSNBC, NPR, or Fox News, we are bombarded with information on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media.

So, how did we abruptly shift from getting news from the same medium to getting news from every angle? The answer is simple: The Internet. The Internet completely transformed how we receive and access all media of information, including political information; politicians can directly speak to voters who then participate in the political arena without leaving their home. Technological advancements in communication play an important role in influencing electoral behavior, easing the accessibility of political information. The Internet makes it easier to find out a candidate’s platform, what they want to work for, and their history. By using the internet in this way, people are engaging in what is now known as “digital citizenship.” A “digital citizen” is one who engages in democratic affairs in conventional ways by using an unconventional medium such as their laptop or smartphone.

The media’s role in elections and politics has grown exponentially since the 1960s. Prior to television, presidential candidates relied on the radio, think of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats, and other interpersonal means to communicate with voters: caucuses, party conventions, town halls, and so on. As technology progressed and television became widely accessible, reliance on interpersonal connections diminished and reliance upon the media grew. Power transitioned from party leaders and bosses to the candidates – as they were able to take control of their campaign, so long as their actions were worthy enough to make headlines. This transfer of power once benefitted only the candidates; however, now the power resides with the media: for they decide what suits their audiences, and who America sees.

This transfer of power greatly impacts our political processes. When politicians are their own bosses, they are able to disregard societal “norms” and use populist rhetoric to enhance their performance in the political realm. Kellener asserts President Trump is the “master of media spectacle”; using populism to make headlines and instill fear into voters more susceptible to fear- and anger-based messaging, he was able to “use the disturbing underside of American politics to mobilize his supporters”.

Picture of various social media icons — Online Internet Icon, Pixaby, Creative Commons

The Good

ISTE.org layers the ‘digital’ components onto the definition of a conventional good citizen:

A good citizen…	A good digital citizen…
Advocates for equal human rights for all	Advocates for equal digital rights for all
Treats others with respect	Seeks to understand all perspectives
Does not steal or damage others’ property	Respects digital privacy, intellectual property, and other rights of people online
Communicates clearly, respectfully, and with empathy	Communicates and acts with empathy for others’ humanity via digital channels
Speaks honestly and does not repeat unsubstantiated rumors	Applies critical thinking to all online sources, including fake news or advertisements
Works to make the world a better place	Leverages technology to advocate for and advance social causes
Protects self and others from harm	Is mindful of physical, emotional, and mental health while using digital tools
Teams up with others on community projects	Leverages digital tools to collaborate with others
Projects a positive self-image	Understands the permanence of the digital world and proactively manages digital identity

All of the characteristics of a “good digital citizen” may be applied to participating in democracy via the Internet. If everyone had access to the internet, more people would be able to register to vote as well as discussing and engaging in the political arena. If we seek to understand more perspectives, we could combat the political “bubbles” that we either choose to live in or are placed into by Facebook filtering your newsfeed depending on your online habits. If we used technology to advocate for social causes such as voter disenfranchisement, we could get more people engaged with our democracy.

Being a “good” digital citizen transcends holding personal values – it includes the pursuit of equality for all. We are lucky enough to live in a country where digital citizenship is accessible for most, but we are doing no justice by those who cannot access it by not utilizing this new form of citizenship.

The Bad

The era of digital citizenship is a result of the rapid spread in access to the Internet. If you have access to the Internet in America, you have the opportunity to register to vote (given that you meet the proper requirements set by your state), to research political platforms and to engage with others to discuss politics. Political participation (not exclusive to voting) has increased – people are engaging more in more discussions on every form of media; however, these discussions may not always be beneficial or productive. Kurst says, due to our emotionally charged atmosphere in the US, it is very easy (and very typical) for conversations surrounding politics escalate to attacks on opposing values. It is easy to rely strictly on what you are told from your favorite news source or directly from a politician and regurgitate the rhetoric, but it is vital to our unity as a society to fact check your information, and respectfully listen to the “other side.”

In today’s political climate, virtually everything is politicized – including our social media. We live in our “red bubbles” or “blue bubbles” and disassociate from anyone who may be on the other side. Thompson argues this is normal; we seek homogeneity in our marriages, workplaces, neighborhoods, and peer groups. However, when it comes to politics and the Internet, we are allowed to pretend like those without similar interests do not exist. When we ostracize a group of people and those people feel as though they are not being represented, we see members of the Republican party proclaiming they are the “silent majority,” which was a galvanizing force behind their voter turnout in 2016. By devaluing another side’s beliefs, we are dehumanizing those who hold them. This causes anger, frustration, and retaliation – all of which that may take place in the digital or physical realms. We cannot abandon our fellow Americans simply because we disagree; we have to realize the differences we have are much less than the commonalities we share.

The polarization of the two parties in America today discredits many media outlets. 47% of conservatives said they get their news exclusively from Fox News; while liberals get theirs from a more diverse set of news. Conservatives and liberals alike see anything that does not reflect their values as “biased”, in fact, members of society gravitate to information that reaffirms their beliefs and intentionally avoid information that contradicts said beliefs, according to Drs. Rouhana and Bar-Tal. This creates a biased interpretation of the news – information that is consistent with already-held beliefs are interpreted as fact and support for whichever side of the argument the reader/viewer ascribes to. As a result, Americans question the validity of news sources that contradict that of their personal beliefs. The crossroads of political polarization and declining trust in our media outlets is where fake news exists. Truth has become a relative term and is often manipulated by an ideology, not fact.

How can we fix the political polarization tearing at the social fabric of American society? Establishing trust “across the aisle” seems like a hopeless cause in today’s America. When asked how to “pop” the political bubbles we live in, Gerson claims, “[the] cause is not hopeless, because the power of words to shape the human spirit is undeniable. These can be words that belittle, diminish and deceive. Or they can ring down the ages about human dignity. They can also allow us, for a moment, to enter the experiences of others and widen, just a bit, the aperture of our understanding. On the success of this calling much else depends.” The solution to diminishing this polarization is to listen – listen and realize the other person you are disagreeing with possess the same humanity you do, and this humanity should be respected.

@ symbol with American symbols — News Internet, by Max Pixel, Creative Commons

Digital Citizenship and Human Rights

Marginalized populations have always struggled to get their voices heard. Without active engagement in democracy, minorities struggle to achieve full citizenship. The Internet and digital citizenship have worked together to diminish this obstacle faced by minorities. Social movements such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and even the Arab Spring began and spread with the assistance of the Internet. Digital citizenship is linked to creating online communities to which people who struggle “fitting in” with their physical environment can find a home.

Using the Internet, citizens are easily mobilized on issues that concern them, whether domestic or international. They are able to pressure politicians to take actions against human rights violations and assist organizations doing field work where an injustice is present. For example, we are able to donate financially to the organizations making an effort to abolish the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community currently taking place in Chechnya, Russia. By being aware of it and all the other injustices taking place, we are able to assist in the resistance and make a difference in a way we could not have 10 years ago thanks to the Internet.

There are those who choose to not engage in politics in any shape or form, and there are those who use the Internet exclusively for political reasons. Wherever you fall within that spectrum, it is easy to agree that the polarization we have in America today is an issue that needs proper attention. It starts at the individual level: listening to what others who are different have to say, diversifying your news sources, and being open to disagreement. We must break out of our “bubbles” and not allow the influence of the Internet to shape our values for us.