When Children Are Treated as Adults: How One Alabama Teen Inspired My Fight for Justice

Girl behind bars.
Girl behind bars. By Nejron Photo; Adobe Stock. File #: 32689299

I did not enter the world of juvenile justice reform through textbooks, research questions, or curiosity about public policy. I entered it through a child. A girl I first met when she was just fourteen years old, wide-eyed, quiet, and already carrying a lifetime of burdens on her small frame. I was assigned as her CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) at a time when her life was marked by instability, poverty, and trauma. She was living in conditions most adults would find impossible, yet she still greeted me each week with a hesitant smile, a mix of hope and uncertainty in her eyes. Her resilience was unmistakable, even if she didn’t yet recognize it in herself.

Over the years, I watched her survive circumstances that would flatten most adults. She moved between unsafe living situations, often unsure where she would sleep or whether she would eat. She navigated school while juggling the chaos around her. She experienced loss, betrayal, and instability. And yet she showed up. She tried. She hoped. She fought to stay afloat.

Nothing in those early years prepared me for what would come next.

At sixteen, through a series of events, she was just present when a crime occurred. One she did not commit, did not plan, and did not anticipate. But in Alabama, presence is enough to catapult a child into the adult criminal system. Under Alabama’s automatic transfer statute, Ala. Code § 12-15-203, youth charged with certain offenses are moved to adult court entirely by default, without judicial evaluation and without any meaningful consideration of developmental maturity, trauma history, or the child’s actual involvement.

The law did not acknowledge her age, her vulnerability, her role in the event, or her long history of surviving poverty, abuse, and instability. It simply swept her into the adult system as if she were fully responsible for the incident and for her own survival. Overnight, she went from being a child in need of care to being treated as an adult offender. She was taken to an adult county jail, where her new reality consisted of four concrete walls, metal doors, and the unrelenting loneliness that comes from being a minor in a facility designed for grown men.

 

Child behind bars.
Child behind bars. By Tinnakorn; Adobe Stock. File #: 691836996

Because the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requires strict “sight and sound separation” between minors and adults, and because most Alabama jails have no youth-specific housing units, she was placed into what the facility calls “protective custody.” In reality, this translated into solitary confinement. She spends nearly every hour of every day alone. No peers. No programming. No classroom. No sunlight. No meaningful human contact.

Not for days. Not for weeks. But for over an entire year.

Even now, writing those words feels unreal. A child, my former CASA child, has spent more than a year in near total isolation because Alabama does not have the infrastructure to house minors safely in adult jails. And it was this experience – witnessing her slow unraveling under the weight of isolation – that pushed me into research and now advocacy.

But the research came after the heartbreak.
She was the beginning, and she remains the reason.

Understanding the System That Failed Her

When I began researching how a child like her could be locked in an adult jail for over a year, the data was overwhelming. In 2023 alone, an estimated 2,513 youth under age eighteen were held in adult jails and prisons in the United States, according to The Sentencing Project. Alabama is not an outlier — it is fully participating in this national trend of treating children as adults based on the offense they are charged with, rather than who they are developmentally.

The more I learned about solitary confinement, the more horrified I became.
And yet none of it surprised me, not after watching what it is doing to her.

A young woman in handcuffs.
A young woman in handcuffs. By Nutlegal; Adobe Stock. File #: 259270712

Human Rights Watch reports that youth held in solitary confinement are 19 times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers in general populations. The United Nations Mandela Rules explicitly prohibit solitary confinement for anyone under eighteen, identifying it as a form of torture. The ACLU has documented the widespread use of isolation for youth in jails due to Prison Rape Elimination Act compliance limitations. And reports from the Prison Policy Initiative and the Equal Justice Initiative show that children in adult facilities face elevated risks of physical assault, sexual violence, psychological decline, and self-harm.

Developmental science aligns with these findings. Decades of work by scholars such as Laurence Steinberg show that adolescent brains are not fully developed — especially the regions governing impulse control, long-term planning, and risk assessment — but are exceptionally responsive to rehabilitation and growth.

Yet Alabama’s transfer laws ignore this entire body of scientific knowledge.

Even more troubling, youth transferred to adult court are 34% more likely to reoffend than youth who remain in the juvenile system. Adult criminal processing actively harms public safety.

Meanwhile, evidence-based juvenile programs, such as family therapy, restorative justice practices, and community-centered interventions, can reduce recidivism by up to 40%.

Everything we know about youth development suggests that rehabilitation, not punishment, protects communities.

Everything we know about juvenile justice suggests that children should never be housed in adult jails.

Everything we know about solitary confinement suggests that no human, let alone a child, should endure it.

And yet here she was, enduring it.

What Isolation Does to a Child

It is one thing to read the research. It is another to watch a child absorb its consequences.

When I visit her, she tries to be brave. She sees me on the video monitor and forces herself to smile, though the strain shows in her eyes. She tells me about the silence in the jail at night, the way it wraps around her like a heavy blanket. She talks about missing school — math class, of all things — and how she used to dream about graduating. She describes the fear, the uncertainty, the way days blend into each other until she loses track of time entirely.

She has asked me more than once if anyone remembers she is only seventeen.
She wonders whether her life outside those walls still exists.
She apologizes for crying — apologizes for being scared, as if fear is a defect rather than a reasonable response to months of isolation.

Watching her navigate the psychological toll of solitary confinement is one of the most difficult experiences I have had as an advocate. The changes have been slow, subtle, and painful: her posture tenser, her voice quieter, her expressions more guarded, her hope more fragile.

Children are resilient, but resilience has limits.
Solitary confinement breaks adults.
What it does to children is indescribable.

A woman in despair.
A woman in despair. By yupachingping; Adobe Stock. File #: 246747604

Why Alabama Must Reform Its Juvenile Transfer Laws

The more I researched, the more I understood that her story is not an exception; it is a predictable outcome of Alabama’s laws.

Ending this harm requires several critical reforms:

  1. Eliminate automatic transfer.

A child’s fate should not be decided by statute alone. Judges must be empowered to consider the full context — trauma history, level of involvement, mental health, maturity, and the circumstances of the offense.

  1. Ban housing minors in adult jails.

Other states have already taken this step. Alabama must follow.

  1. End juvenile solitary confinement.

Solitary confinement is not a protective measure; it is a human rights violation.

  1. Expand access to juvenile rehabilitation programs.

The science is clear: youth rehabilitation supports public safety far more effectively than punishment.

  1. Increase statewide transparency.

Alabama must track how many minors are transferred, how they are housed, and how long they remain in adult facilities. Without data, there can be no accountability.

She Deserves Justice

I am writing a policy brief because of her.
I studied this policy landscape because of her.
I advocate for systemic change because of her.

Her story is woven into every sentence of my research, every recommendation I’ve made, every argument I’ve formed. She is the reason I cannot walk away from this fight, not when I’ve witnessed what the system does to the children most in need of protection.

She deserves safety.
She deserves support.
She deserves a justice system that recognizes her humanity.

And she is not alone. There are countless children in Alabama — many living in poverty, many from marginalized communities, many without stable adult support — who are forced into adult systems that were never designed for them.

Their stories matter.
Their lives matter.
And the system must change.

Light falling over a girl's eyes.
Light falling over a girl’s eyes. By stivog; Adobe Stock. File #: 422569932

What You Can Do

If you believe that children deserve dignity, fairness, and protection, here are ways to support change:

  • Support organizations working to reform youth justice in Alabama:
    Equal Justice Initiative, Alabama Appleseed, ACLU of Alabama, or me — I can use all the help I can get.
  • Share this story to help build awareness.
  • Contact state legislators and demand an end to automatic transfer and juvenile solitary confinement.
  • Become a CASA and advocate for children whose voices are often ignored.
  • Vote in local elections, especially for district attorneys, sheriffs, and judges — leaders whose decisions directly impact youth.

Conclusion: Children Are Not Adults—Alabama’s Laws Must Reflect This Truth

The science is clear, the research is clear, and the human impact is undeniable.
Children are developmentally different. Children are vulnerable. And, in my opinion, children deserve grace, understanding, and second chances.

When we place children in adult jails, when we isolate them for months, when we treat them as if they are beyond repair, we do more than violate their rights—we violate our own values as a society.

The 17-year-old girl I have advocated for over the past three years is a reminder of what is at stake. She is not a statistic. She is not a file number. She is a child — a child whose life, dignity, and future must matter as much as any adult’s.

She is the beginning of my story in this work, and she remains at its heart.
Her experience makes it impossible to ignore the urgency of reform.
And her resilience makes it impossible to lose hope.

Alabama can do better.
Alabama must do better.
And children like her are counting on us to make sure it happens.

Woman behind bars
Woman behind bars; By primipil; Adobe Stock. File #: 524235023

The Toll of Iran’s Women‑Led Rights Movement: A Psychological Standpoint

Woman Life Freedom
Image 1: “Woman Life Freedom” The slogan highlights courage and persistence in the global struggle for equality and justice. Source: Adobe Stock #1657149359

On September 16, 2022, the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Jina Amini while in the custody of Iran’s morality police ignited a nationwide uprising. What began as protests over hijab enforcement evolved into a broader demand for freedom and justice under the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom.” But beyond the political stakes, this movement has unleashed profound psychological consequences for individuals and society; it is a crisis at the intersection of human rights and mental health.

An Overview of the Crisis

Women in Iran began revolting after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa (Jina) Amini, who was arrested by the country’s “morality police” in September 2022 for allegedly wearing her hijab too loosely. Witnesses reported that she was beaten in custody, and she died shortly afterward, becoming a symbol of the everyday oppression that Iranian women face under strict mandatory hijab laws and decades of state surveillance, harassment, and punishment. Her death ignited widespread anger, leading women and girls to remove their hijabs, cut their hair, and protest the broader system of gender-based control. This outrage quickly expanded beyond Amini herself, sparking one of the largest protest movements in Iran’s recent history and drawing nationwide support.

The protests triggered by Amini’s death were among the largest Iran had seen in decades, spreading to more than 150 cities. State repression followed swiftly: reports indicate that security forces used lethal force, detained thousands, and committed acts of torture and sexual violence against protesters. A UN fact-finding mission later concluded that many of these violations may amount to crimes against humanity, including murder, imprisonment, torture, and persecution, particularly targeting women. Despite international outcry, accountability has been limited, and the psychological wounds continue to deepen.

The Weaponization of Psychiatry

One of the most chilling psychological tactics used by the Iranian regime against participants in the recent protests is the involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of dissenters. Authorities have publicly admitted that some student protesters were sent to “psychological institutes” during and after the protests, not for genuine mental illness, but as a tool to “re-educate” them.

In one particularly disturbing case, Ahoo Daryaei, a doctoral student who protested by partially removing her hijab in public, was reportedly forcefully disappeared and likely sent to a psychiatric hospital. Labeling protest behavior as “madness” isn’t just stigmatizing; it’s a deliberate form of repression rooted in misusing mental health institutions. Psychiatrists inside and outside Iran have condemned this practice as a gross violation of human rights.

Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression

The violence of the crackdown and the constant threat to safety have caused widespread psychological trauma. But even those not visibly injured describe deep emotional scars.

In interviews and counseling settings, psychologists report a surge in anxiety and depression among young women across Iran. A female psychotherapist described how girls in small towns, once relatively isolated, entered into a state of “heightened awareness” after Amini’s death, but also into frustration and internal conflict:

“This newfound awareness has disrupted their previous state of relative comfort … tension and conflict within their families have become an added burden …”

These emotional struggles are compounded by the fact that some girls feel guilty or disloyal to their families when they defy expectations, which is a significant psychological burden. On a broader level, the constant surveillance, repression, and societal division fuels pervasive fear. A published analysis of Iran’s protests noted that protest-related trauma is not just physical but deeply psychological, affecting individuals’ ability to trust, belong, and imagine a safer future.

Collective Psychology: Identity, Resilience & Social Change

Despite the repression, the movement has fostered powerful collective resilience and identity. Psychologically, protests like these are often rooted in social identity theory: people come together around a shared sense of injustice (in this case, gender-based oppression and state violence) and develop strong bonds that motivate collective action.

One manifestation of this is the growing refusal of women to wear the hijab, which is becoming seen as a normalized act of civil disobedience. This symbolic rejection has become a form of psychological resistance. Rather than waiting for external change, many Iranians are asserting internal agency and self-determination.

This quiet revolution isn’t risk-free. Protesters face brutality, arrest, and psychological harm. But for many, the act of defiance itself is a source of empowerment and a way to reshape their own sense of identity, purpose, and belonging in a context that so blatantly denies them autonomy.

Iranian woman protesting
Image 2: Iranian woman protesting. Source: Adobe Stock, Mumpitz, #543171718

Intergenerational Effects & the Future

The mental health impacts of the crackdown are likely to have long-term, intergenerational consequences. Children and teenagers exposed to violence, either directly or via their families, may carry trauma that affects their development, academic performance, and relationships. For some, the protests represent a break from generational patterns of silence or submission, but that break comes with a cost.

Moreover, the lack of institutional accountability, as documented by Human Rights Watch and the UN, compounds the trauma. Without justice or recognition, survivors may struggle to process their experiences, leading to lasting emotional scars. Yet, there is hope: the persistence of the movement, even in the face of brutal repression, suggests that for many Iranians, psychological healing and human-rights change are intertwined. The continued refusal to comply, the daily acts of resistance, and the communal memory of trauma may all serve as foundations for a future built on dignity and freedom.

Why This Is a Human Rights and Mental Health Crisis

From a human-rights perspective, what’s happening in Iran is not just political suppression, but also a systematic campaign of gendered persecution, psychological control, and enforced conformity. The UN mission concluded that many of the regime’s actions amounted to crimes against humanity, including persecution, torture, and sexual violence.

Psychologically, the use of psychiatric institutions to silence dissenters violates fundamental principles of autonomy and mental integrity. Even more, the widespread trauma threatens social cohesion, sense of identity, and collective well-being. The mental health crisis is not a side effect, it’s central to the human rights violations. Without addressing both the physical and psychological consequences, the wounds of this movement will remain unhealed, and the foundation for meaningful justice and reform will be unstable.

What Needs to Happen

Addressing this crisis requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. International accountability and support are essential, with bodies like the UN and international courts pressing for justice, accountability, and reparations for victims of repression, while countries with universal jurisdiction consider investigating human rights abuses, including psychological repression. Mental health infrastructure and aid must also be expanded, with support from international organizations to provide trauma counseling and remote psychosocial assistance to Iranians both inside and outside the country who lack safe access to care. Protecting dissenters from psychiatric abuse is critical; international psychiatry associations should condemn involuntary hospitalizations of protesters and provide clear guidelines for safeguarding patients’ rights, while diplomatic or economic pressure could be directed at institutions complicit in these abuses. Finally, empowering local and global solidarity is vital: amplifying the voices of Iranian activists, particularly women, and supporting cultural forms of resistance such as music, art, and storytelling can promote healing, identity formation, and collective resilience.

Conclusion

The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran is more than a political uprising; it’s a psychological battleground. The regime’s brutal crackdown is not only a violation of bodily rights but of mental integrity. People are being traumatized, surveilled, pathologized, and denied justice. Yet in the face of repression, they are also cultivating a new collective identity, resilience, and purpose. Understanding this crisis through a psychological lens is essential. It reminds us that human rights are not abstract ideals; they are woven into our mental well-being, our capacity to heal, to resist, and to imagine a freer future.

More than a Cookout: Black Family Reunions as Acts of Resilience

A joyful group of six people gathers around a dinner table outside, sharing laughter. The table is set with colorful dishes, under warm string lights.
Happy Black family dining together on house patio, By Alessandro Biascioli https://stock.adobe.com/images/happy-african-family-dining-together-on-house-patio/577447909?prev_url=detail

The sun is beyond blazing. It’s the middle of July somewhere deep in the South. Out in a grassy field, vibrant R&B and soul floats across the air. Barbecue smoke curls upward, mixing with bursts of laughter. Children are running around playing a game of kickball. Aunties and uncles sit at folding tables slapping down cards in a game of spades. The food is plentiful, as are the memories. Everyone around is wearing the same matching shirt, stamped with the words “Family Reunion.”

While it may look like a simple summertime gathering, the Black family reunion is more than a cookout. This cultural tradition for the Black American family has served as a living act of community and resilience. Despite being in a society that, across centuries, has fragmented Black families through enslavement, displacement, incarceration, and economic inequality, reunions reclaim that assailed unity by asserting the Black family’s right to exist, to connect, and to remember. In this way, Black family reunions stand as living demonstrations of strength, cultural preservation and human rights in action.

After the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, newly freed Black Americans began searching desperately for lost relatives. Newspaper ads, church bulletins, and Freedmen’s Bureau records overflowed with pleas for information and became one of the largest mass searches for family members in U.S. history. Some traveled hundreds of miles by foot or wagon, following rumors of where a mother had been sold or a sibling last seen. Piecing back together the fragments of kinship was one of the first exercises of freedom. Many freedpeople legalized marriages that slave codes had prohibited and that forced separations had fractured. Reunification efforts continued well beyond the Civil War. As the 20th century approached, Jim Crow policies restricted movement and opportunity, pushing Black families to develop intentional spaces of gathering. When the Great Migration (1910–1970) relocated millions of Black Americans from the rural South to industrial cities, family reunions transformed into anchors. Relatives from all over would return home to a place where members of different generations would rejoice communally. These reunions were a constant, something that served as a reminder of where home really was. This was not just an emotional gathering, but a political act as well.

Sunset over a serene marshland with reflective water channels and lush green reeds. The dramatic sky is filled with vibrant orange and purple clouds.
Sunset with low country marsh, By Nate.Rosso https://stock.adobe.com/images/sunset-with-low-country-marsh/518862457?prev_url=detail

At a time when so much of the Black identity has been commodified and misrepresented, family gatherings serve as spaces of self-definition. Elders share stories that are intricately woven together like a quilt, tying together generations. These are stories you don’t read in history books. Tales of migration, of how a family land plot was held after Reconstruction, of the relatives who raised children not their own, or of how names were passed down to honor those who came before. Many Black Americans lack physical documents of our ancestors, so relying on these stories is important. The family trees and cultural roots live in people. Recipes passed down from grandma, learning hand games from your older cousin, being taught how to braid– all are acts of remembrance. They are living archives where history, memory, and joy coexist, especially when you think about how much love went into the plate you eat from, or what lengths each member went to to get here. Psychologists have spoken about intergenerational resilience, the passing down of coping strategies, identity, and heritage through shared rituals and traditions. For Black families, reunions are a major mechanism of psychological and cultural healing. Despite slavery, despite Jim Crow, despite mass incarceration, despite poverty, the kinship ties hold strong.

A joyful scene of a young girl with a red bow in her hair, surrounded by three women helping her adjust it. A warm, family atmosphere is evident.
Three generations of women on a sofa, Photo by RDNE Stock project from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/three-generation-on-sofa-7951664/

Serving as living testaments of endurance, the Black family reunion embodies what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 16 identifies the family as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society.” The UDHR affirms that this unit is entitled to protection. For centuries Black Americans have had to build that unit from the ground up. In a society that has conjured every act imaginable to fracture kinship, the act of reuniting has become a radical reclamation of humanity. It protects the right to family, the right to culture, and the right to dignity. Beyond the UDHR, The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) emphasizes communities’ rights to preserve and transmit cultural practices. Reunions do this naturally, serving as places where Black cultural heritage is passed not only through words but through food, music, tradition, and presence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 23, which the United States has ratified, states: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Black family reunions exemplify this right, even when institutions have failed to protect Black families throughout history. From a human rights lens, it’s not simply a tradition. It is a site of cultural and familial rights being lived out, preserved, and protected.

Like all long-held traditions, family reunions now face modern challenges. Gentrification has reshaped many historically Black neighborhoods, erasing the physical landmarks that once grounded families. This leaves some families’ home anchor that held their ancestors together financially inaccessible or gone entirely. Younger generations are feeling more disconnected from their family’s roots or are unaware of their heritage. Rising travel costs, inflexible work schedules, and economic pressures make it harder for families to gather in person. Yet, Black families continue to adapt. Technology has helped foster new methods of connection. Photo albums shared through online drives, online fundraisers to help cover costs, family group-chats, Zoom calls, and much more all work to bring families together across distance. These digital tools have helped make it possible for families to reunite, no matter the circumstance. Whether under a tent in someone’s backyard or through the screen of a laptop, the message remains the same: we are still here.

A joyful family of four walks hand in hand through a grassy field. The girl holds a colorful kite, expressing happiness and togetherness in a natural setting.
Black family laughing and flying a kite while running together outdoors. By Drobot Dean https://stock.adobe.com/images/black-family-laughing-and-flying-kite-while-running-together/474942304?prev_url=detail

Protecting the right to family is not just a matter of law, but legacy. Reunions show that when institutions fail to preserve connection, communities find their own way. The family reunion reminds us that human rights are not abstract ideals; they are lived through various experiences. As long as the smoke of the grill rises and laughter fills the air, the legacy of resilience lives on. Because even in the face of adversity, Black joy endures.

Alabama’s “Invisible Disabilities” ID Proposal

Human Rights Perspective on the Proposal to Put “Invisible Disabilities” on Alabama IDs 

Box for ballot papers on desk and young African American man with disability sitting in wheelchair and making his choice.
Box for ballot papers on desk and young African American man with disability sitting in wheelchair and making his choice. By: pressmaster. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 580784797

There is buzz around Alabama’s proposal to designate “invisible disabilities” on state ID cards by the end of this fiscal year. This legislative initiative has sparked significant debate and attention. In November 2025, a bill was introduced in Alabama that would allow individuals to add an “invisible disability” designation to their driver’s licenses or state ID cards. Ontario Tillman, the state representative who is introducing this measure, argues that this “protective” measure could help law enforcement and first responders understand and quickly identify persons who may have non-apparent disabilities such as autism, PTSD, or traumatic brain injury. Tillman argues that this would be helpful for law enforcement and other officials to know because people with these and other invisible disabilities may respond to officers in unexpected ways that could cause situations to spiral dangerously. By equipping law enforcement and first responders with the information that the person they are engaging with has an invisible disability, Tillman hopes that there would be more patience and understanding built between responders and the person with the disability.

Invisible Disability ID Markers Elsewhere

States like Alaska, Maryland, and Colorado have started adding invisible disability indicators to driver’s licenses and ID cards, but they are taking different routes and raising similar debates. Alaska lets residents voluntarily add an invisible disability designation to licenses or IDs through its DMV, framing it as a tool to signal needs in situations like traffic stops or emergencies without revealing a specific diagnosis. Colorado offers a small icon on state IDs for people with invisible disabilities and, in the first year and a half of its implementation, 1,096 people signed up for the marker. In Maryland, “Eric’s Law” created an optional invisible disability notation after disability activist Eric Blessed Carpenter Grantham pushed for the state to offer this accommodation; the Maryland Department of Transportation now treats the marker as one more tool for safety and understanding. Across these states, the basic idea is similar: make it easier for disabled people to get accommodations or de-escalation in high-stress situations by building a quiet signal into ID systems.​

People’s reactions, though, show how complicated it feels to put disability information on something as central as an ID. Supporters, including some disability advocates and families, say these markers can reduce misunderstandings with law enforcement, explain why someone might not respond typically in a crisis, and help folks access assistance in travel, medical, or security settings. Critics worry about privacy, data misuse, and the risk that a symbol meant to protect could expose disabled people to profiling or discrimination, especially if officers or agencies lack proper training. The same design that could make interactions safer may also force people to disclose something deeply personal just to move through public life, which is why most of these programs stress that the markers are voluntary and part of a broader conversation about rights, safety, and trust.​

The Sunflower Movement

The Sunflower Movement takes a different, more global approach by using a simple visual symbol—a yellow sunflower on a green background—to quietly say, “I have a non-visible disability; I may need a little extra time or support.” The Hidden Disabilities Sunflower program started in UK airports and has spread across airlines, transit systems, and public venues in the U.S. and worldwide, with lanyards, pins, or badges that travelers can choose to wear. For people who travel, the appeal is that you don’t have to verbally explain a diagnosis every time you go through security or check in; instead, staff trained on the symbol are supposed to slow down, offer clearer instructions, or provide small accommodations like extra time, seating, or help navigating noisy, crowded spaces.​

Airports from Albany to Boise and Nashville have adopted the sunflower lanyard program as part of disability awareness and inclusion initiatives, often pairing it with staff training and signage so people know what the symbol means. Travelers with autism, chronic pain, anxiety, or other invisible conditions have described feeling more seen and less judged when wearing the lanyard, especially in stressful spaces like TSA lines or boarding gates. At the same time, the sunflower is not legally binding—unlike ADA accommodations—and depends heavily on staff attitudes; if workers aren’t trained or take it as “just a nice idea,” the symbol can lose its power and even feel performative. For many in our generation, the Sunflower Movement sits at the intersection of design and dignity: it’s a low-tech, opt-in signal that can make travel more humane, but it also reminds us that real inclusion still requires policy, training, and accountability behind the symbol.

CRPD and Human Dignity

While there are clearly benefits to implementing such IDs, there are also human rights concerns that we need to be aware of when placing identifying markers on government documents. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasizes respect for inherent dignity, autonomy, and privacy, which implicitly warns against measures that increase stigma or surveillance. An ID marker might help in some emergencies, but it can also conflict with the right to privacy and non-discrimination if used coercively or without strong safeguards.On one hand, the designation could protect life and security (civil and political rights) in police encounters; on the other, it could undermine equal treatment in employment, housing, or education if IDs are widely requested or copied, thereby harming economic, social, and cultural rights. From a human rights perspective, it is important to consider this bill’s implications for privacy, potential misuse of data, and the risk of profiling. There is the potential for harmful labeling labeling and hidden discrimination practices through this policy, particularly for marginalized communities already facing over-policing.​

Conclusion

For Alabamians with “invisible” disabilities, this new ID proposal raises immediate questions: Who controls disability disclosure? How do policies intended to “help” sometimes deepen exclusion? And how can we push for alternatives—like better training, crisis-response reform, and universal design—rather than relying on labels that follow disabled people everywhere they go? Creating a human-rights-oriented world requires creativity and innovation, and ID markers and sunflowers are just two methods among many that we could implement to advance this cause. In pursuit of human rights, let’s be sure to consider the pros and cons of every step we take.

Amplifying Indigenous Rights & Reclaiming Sovereignty: A Human Rights Perspective in 2025

Amplifying Indigenous Rights & Reclaiming Sovereignty: A Human Rights Perspective in 2025

A view of sign "Respect Indigenous Lands" during The Climate Strike on Burrard Bridge in Vancouver
A view of sign “Respect Indigenous Lands” during The Climate Strike on Burrard Bridge in Vancouver By: Margarita Source: Adobe Stock Asset ID#: 424352523

Local Example: Indigenous Youth and Environmental Advocacy

Indigenous communities worldwide have endured centuries of marginalization, land loss, and cultural erosion from colonial policies—patterns mirrored in Alabama by the Mvskoke (Creek), Cherokee, and Choctaw peoples. The principles of self-determination (UNDRIP Art. 3), cultural integrity (UNDRIP Art. 8), and land rights (UDHR Art. 17) form the backbone of international frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), yet they’ve been systematically violated here. Understanding the legal, historical, and cultural ties between these principles and the human rights violations committed against indigenous peoples helps unpack questions around local sovereignty, environmental justice, and global human rights. This post links these global issues to Alabama’s realities, centering voices like the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (PCI) in their fight for cultural survival.

The Ongoing Challenge: Legal Barriers

Despite international frameworks like UNDRIP and national laws intended to protect Indigenous rights, significant challenges remain. The 1830 Indian Removal Act still echoes in legal briefs, and blood-quantum rules continue to limit tribal membership and threaten the continuity of communities. In Alabama, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians remains the only federally recognized tribe, which means many groups lack access to the critical resources and legal protections that come with federal recognition.

So, what echoes of the 1830 Indian Removal Act do we still see in legal briefs today? The big thing is how federal power over Native nations gets justified. Lawyers and courts still reference the government’s “plenary power” to control Native land, citizenship, and policy. This logic comes straight from the same paternalistic, colonial mindset that led to forced removals and broken treaties in the first place. In human rights language, this is a problem because it clashes with the principle that all peoples have the right to determine their own affairs and maintain control over their culture and territory. This is simply called the right to self-determination. When legal arguments rely on these old precedents, it shows that the legacy of the Indian Removal Act isn’t just history—it’s still shaping the boundaries of Indigenous rights today.

Now, let’s talk blood quantum. Blood quantum is the idea of using fractions—like “one-quarter” or “one-eighth” Native ancestry—to decide who is officially recognized as Indigenous. This system was imposed by the U.S. government as a way to shrink tribal rolls, limit legal obligations, and ultimately erode Indigenous communities over time. From a human rights perspective, blood quantum rules undermine the rights to identity, community, and non-discrimination. They reduce belonging to math, not lived culture. Over generations, these rules threaten to erase entire groups by making it harder for people to claim their heritage or pass it on.

Understanding blood quantum rules is a real-world example of how discrimination can be built into legal systems and policies—not just through obvious prejudice, but through technicalities that seem neutral on the surface. History is full of legal exclusions, and learning about Indigenous struggles connects to broader fights for justice and equality that affect all marginalized communities.

In summary, blood quantum rules conflict with core human rights values: the right to dignity, equality before the law, and the right for peoples to define their own identity. Recognizing how these rules work helps us see where human rights fall short in practice, and why these issues matter for anyone who cares about justice.

Opportunities for support and community do exist– the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Minority Association of Pre-Health Students supports underrepresented pre-med students—including those from Indigenous backgrounds—through mentorship and support services, and beyond the classroom, students can engage with Indigenous culture and history through campus and community events. For example, the Mvskoke Nation Creek Friends Festival in Tory, Alabama, and the Trail of Tears Remembrance Ride in northern Alabama offer opportunities to learn directly from Indigenous leaders and participate in cultural preservation.​

The Importance of Awareness and Informed Engagement

The challenges faced by Indigenous communities—such as language loss, environmental threats, and legal barriers—are significant. However, awareness and informed participation are powerful tools for change. People can make a difference by learning more, attending events, and engaging in campus discussions about human rights.

Conclusion

True justice for Indigenous communities in Alabama and elsewhere extends far beyond simply recognizing these groups’ history and struggles. It requires an ongoing commitment to learning, listening, and advocating for meaningful change. This means examining the systems and policies that have contributed to inequality and being willing to challenge them, even when it’s uncomfortable. Supporting Indigenous-led movements and respecting their sovereignty are crucial steps in this process.

Education is also a powerful tool—by learning about Indigenous histories and current issues, we can dispel myths and foster greater empathy, justice, and a moral society. But knowledge alone isn’t enough; it’s essential to translate understanding into action, whether that’s through volunteering, policy advocacy, or standing in solidarity at community events. Amplifying Indigenous voices ensures that solutions reflect the needs and perspectives of those most affected.

Ultimately, building a human rights community benefits everyone. Each of us has a role to play, whether as students, educators, or neighbors. When we choose to engage, support, and advocate, we help create a future where human rights and justice are not just ideals and theories, but realities experienced by all.

Racism and Colorism in Cuba

Because racism and colorism are persistent parts of reality in the world we inhabit, this blog post will be focusing on racism and colorism, specifically in Cuba. Cuba, an island located in the Caribbean, has dealt with racism historically and currently. On December 9th, 2024, representatives of the Cuban state and civil society met at the International Conference Cuba 2024 for the Decade of African descendants, which promotes an anti-racist cause. Five years previous to this, the Cuban Council of Ministers approved the National Program Against Racism and Colorism because they felt that there was a strong need to eliminate prejudices in Cuba. One may ask what some of the things that led to the Council’s decision were. It is therefore important to look at Cuba’s history in order to understand the current Cuban state.

Historical Context

Green Sedan Parked in Front of Building
Green Sedan parked in front of building. Source: Pexels; Photo by Yuting Gao: https://www.pexels.com/photo/green-sedan-parked-on-front-of-building-1637112/


Cuba has an extensive colonial history; it was colonized by the Spanish. Until 1810, Cuba was officially part of the vast Spanish Empire that spread out across the Americas. It was also one of the key ports in the Atlantic world of plantation economies and slavery. According to Alexander von Humboldt, the Spanish Empire represented the true wealth of America, because the competing colonies were small islands and coastal settlements. Spain lost its mainland colonies during the Spanish American wars of independence, which lasted until about 1830, but the majority of the Cuban elite remained loyal to Spain for economic reasons. The Cuban colony had previously built a crucial sugar industry that relied on an extensive amount of slave labor. Havana and Matanzas had become the wealthiest agricultural region in the Atlantic/ American world. It was home to a highly industrialized form of export agriculture known as “Cuba A” or “Big Cuba,” characterized by large-scale slavery, modern sugar mills and advanced infrastructure like railroads. From 1820 to 1870, Cuba also depended heavily on the illegal slave trade, which provided the financial and human foundation for its expanding sugar-based economy.

Racism in Cuba was based on supposed biological differences. The first efforts to develop a legal understanding of the Cuban Black class were undertaken by Spain’s imperial elite through the introduction of new slave codes in 1785 and 1789. In the “Código Negro Carolino” for the island of Santo Domingo, the Crown and its colonial power structures aimed to codify a rigid hierarchy of social classes organized according to skin color and geographic ancestry which was based on Africa. At the bottom of this system was the “negro class” made up of enslaved people. Right above the enslaved people were the free people of color, classified as Blacks, Mulattos, and Pardos.

Marriage across these color lines allowed for limited movement within the hierarchy. When a darker woman ranging in classification from Black to light mulatta married a lighter-skinned man, their children could occupy one of several intermediary ranks of Tercerones and Cuarterones. By the sixth generation, if the paternal line had consistently remained white, the descendants could legally be recognized as white. As these codes established and reinforced the boundaries of the Black class, separating it sharply from other colonial castes, the Spanish Crown opened paths for social mobility. Wealthy Morenos, Pardos, and mulattos were permitted to purchase the privileges of whiteness such as title “don,” membership in elite professional guilds, and higher education. As a result, these reforms both institutionalized races as a legal category and reinforced Cuba’s racial order. However, limited upward socioeconomic mobility was available for those who could afford it.


Bringing it Back to the Present

Man Wearing Straw Hat While Smoking
Man wearing straw hat, smoking a cigar. Source: Pexels; Photo by Anton: https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-wearing-straw-hat-while-smoking-47296/


Castroism, though it claims to be egalitarian and did result in material gains for the Afro-Cuban population, did not eradicate racism. Behind all of the government’s efforts to promote equality hid the continual traces of colorism and racism in Cuba. Although Cuba projected itself internationally as a champion of racial justice, this image hid continuous forms of inequalities at home. After the Cuban revolution, official claims that racism had been eliminated made public discussions of race taboo. The Castro government even dissolved Afro-Cuban clubs and associations that had long served as spaces for advocacy and mutual support. This is in direct violation of Article 1 of the UDHR which states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The silencing of Afro-Cuban Clubs that served as a place for advocacy shows that the government and others within Cuban society did not want Blacks to have much of a say-so, perhaps because they did not feel as if the Afro-Cubans had the same status and dignity as the rest of the population.

This illusion of racial unity began to unravel following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Subsequent reforms reshaped Cuba’s economy and exposed the racial disparities that revolutionary rhetoric had long denied. Today, racial hierarchies remain deeply embedded in everyday life. In fact, speaking openly about racial inequality can result in social backlash. This was the case as Afro-Cuban clubs face backlash as they tried to talk about disparities in the Afro-Cuban community and provide advocacy. This is also a direct violation of the UDHR’s preamble as it describes that freedom of speech should be enjoyed by all. It is also a violation of Article 20, which says that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”


Colorism

Colorful Cuban Street Vendor with Basket of Flowers
Colorful Cuban street vendor with basket of flowers. Source: Pexels; Photo by Fernando Sánchez Aranguren: https://www.pexels.com/photo/colorful-cuban-street-vendor-with-basket-of-flowers-32512015/

One way that colorism and anti-Blackness manifest in Cuba occurs in the tourism industry. Tourism is one of the country’s main industries, and job postings in this field often use coded phrases such as searching for “buena presencia,” which translates to “good appearance”. “Good appearance” implicitly refers to physical features that are less common among Cuba’s Black population. Such practices continuously push the social and economic dominance of whiteness and scream the remnant voices of colonialism.

Colorism is also prevalent in homes, which is where racial learning begins. Cuban families are often racially diverse, and siblings can be categorized differently depending on their appearances. Within households, casual comparisons between pelo malo, which means “bad hair” and is used to refer to kinkier and darker hair, and pelo bueno, which translates to “good hair,” reflect and reproduce racial hierarchies. This shows that many Black Cubans encounter prejudice first not from the government or from other citizens, but from relatives who believe the same biases and prejudices that marginalize them.

Afro-Cubans are aware of this prejudice, as is made clear in an interview conducted by Lulu Garcia Navarro, a journalist who went to Cuba during a 2021 protest. She found that it was the Afro-Cubans that represented the majority of those involved in the protests. She said that during her visits to Cuba, she heard Afro-Cubans talk about how they are referred to in a different way or discussed differently than their white or lighter-skinned counterparts. She provided more context for listeners by interviewing Dr. Amalia Dache, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who researches Cuba, about this phenomenon. Dache confirmed that the lighter-skinned Cuban population saw the darker skinned Afro-Cuban population as subordinate or as second-class citizens. She then said that “The colonial system of race did not end with the revolution.” Clearly, Cuba has a long way to go when it comes to building a society that respects all people. Still, there are efforts to improve, as demonstrated by the strong Cuban presence at the May 2025 meeting of the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent at the United Nations. It is also encouraging to see that, since April 2018, there have been many high-level politicians in Cuba who are Black. As Raúl Castro noted in his April 2018 retirement speech, racism is still rife in Cuba. However, Afro-Cubans are working hard to change this.

AI in Mental Health Diagnostics

Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave.
Image 1: Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave. Adobe Express Stock Images. ZETHA_WORK. #425579329

In recent years, the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental-health care has grown rapidly. AI systems now assist in screening for depression or anxiety, help design treatment plans, and analyze huge volumes of patient data. However, emerging evidence shows that these systems are not neutral: they can embed and amplify bias, threaten rights to equality and non‐discrimination, and have psychological consequences for individuals. We’ll be examining how and why bias arises in AI applications for mental health, the human rights implications, and what psychological effects these developments may carry.

The Rise of AI in Mental Health

AI’s application in mental health is appealing. Many people worldwide lack timely access to mental-health professionals, and AI systems promise scale, cost-efficiency, and new capabilities, like detecting subtle speech or behavioral patterns, that might identify issues earlier. For example, algorithms trained on speech patterns aim to flag depression or PTSD in users.

In principle, this could extend care to underserved populations and reduce the global burden of mental illness. But the technology is emerging in a context of longstanding disparities in mental health care; differences in who is diagnosed, who receives care, and who gets quality treatment.

How Bias Enters AI-based Mental Health Tools

Bias in AI systems does not begin with the algorithm alone; it often starts with the data. Historical and structural inequities, under-representation of certain demographic groups, and sensor or model limitations can all embed biased patterns that then get automated.

A recent systematic review notes major ethical issues in AI interventions for mental health and well‐being: “privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, bias and fairness, transparency and accountability, autonomy and human agency, and safety and efficacy.”

In the mental health screening context, a study from the University of Colorado found that tools screening speech for depression or anxiety performed less well for women and people of non‐white racial identity because of differences in speech patterns and model training bias. A separate study of four large language models (LLMs) found that for otherwise identical hypothetical psychiatric cases, treatment recommendations differed when the patient was identified (explicitly or implicitly) as African American, suggesting racial bias.

These disparities matter: if a diagnostic tool is less accurate for certain groups, those groups may receive delayed or improper care or be misdiagnosed. From a rights perspective, this raises issues of equality and non-discrimination. Every individual has a right to healthcare of acceptable quality, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other status.

Human Rights Implications

Right to health and equitable access

Under human rights law, states have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to health. That includes ensuring mental health services are available, accessible, acceptable and of quality. If AI tools become widespread but are biased against certain groups, the quality and accessibility of care will differ, and that violates the equality dimension of the right to health.

Right to non-discrimination

The principle of non-discrimination is foundational: individuals should not face less favorable treatment due to race, gender, language, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or other prohibited grounds. If an AI mental health tool systematically under-detects problems among women or ethnic minorities or over-targets mental-health evaluation for other groups, discrimination is implicated. For instance, a study found LGBTQIA+ individuals were much more likely to be recommended mental health assessments by AI tools than was clinically indicated based on socioeconomic or demographic profile.

Right to privacy, autonomy and dignity

Mental health data is deeply personal. The use of AI to screen, predict or recommend treatment based on speech, text or behavior engages issues of privacy and autonomy. Individuals must be able to consent, understand how their data is used, challenge decisions, and access human oversight. The systematic review flagged “autonomy and human agency” as core ethical considerations.

Accountability and due process

When decisions about screening, diagnosis, or intervention are influenced by opaque algorithms, accountability becomes unclear. Who is responsible if an AI tool fails or produces biased recommendations? The software developer? The clinician? The institution? This ambiguity can undermine rights to remedy and oversight. The “Canada Protocol” checklist for AI in suicide prevention emphasized the need for clear lines of accountability in AI-driven mental health systems.

Differential labeling and stigma

When AI systems target certain groups disproportionately, for example, recommending mental health assessments for lower-income or LGBTQIA+ individuals when not clinically indicated, it may reinforce stigma. Being singled out for mental health screening based on demographic profile rather than actual need can produce feelings of being pathologized or surveilled.

Bias in therapeutic relationship

Mental health care depends heavily on the relationship between a person and their clinician. Trust, empathy, and feeling understood often determine how effective treatment will be. When someone believes their provider truly listens and treats them fairly, they’re more likely to engage and improve. But if technology or bias undermines that sense of understanding, people may withdraw from care or lose confidence in the system.

Reduced effectiveness or misdiagnosis

If an AI tool under-detects depression among certain groups, like women or ethnic minorities, and that leads to delayed treatment, then the psychological impact of possible longer suffering, increased severity, and reduced hope is real and harm-producing. One study found that AI treatment recommendations were inferior when race was indicated, particularly for schizophrenia cases.

These psychological effects show that bias in AI is not just a technical defect; it can ripple into lived experience, identity, mental health trajectories, and rights realization.

Chatbot conversation Ai Artificial Intelligence technology online customer service.
Image 2: Chatbot conversation with AI technology online customer service. Adobe Express Stock Images. khunkornStudio.
#567681994

Why AI Bias Persists and What Makes Mental Health AI Especially Vulnerable

Data limitations and under-representation

Training data often reflect historical care patterns, which may under-sample certain groups or encode socio-cultural norms that do not generalize. The University of Colorado study highlighted that speech-based AI tools failed to generalize across gender and racial variation.

Hidden variables and social determinants

One perspective argues that disparities in algorithmic performance arise not simply from race labels but also from un-modelled variables, such as racism-related stress, generational trauma, poverty, and language differences, all of which affect mental health profiles but may not be captured in datasets.

Psychology of diagnostic decision-making

Mental health diagnosis is not purely objective; it involves interpretation, cultural nuance, and relational trust. AI tools often cannot replicate that nuance and may misinterpret behaviors or speech patterns that differ culturally. That raises a psychological dimension: people from different backgrounds may present differently, and a one-size-fits-all tool may misclassify them.

Moving Toward Rights-Respecting AI in Mental Health

Given the stakes for rights and psychology, what should stakeholders do? Below are guiding principles anchored in human rights considerations and psychological realities:

  1. Inclusive and representative datasets
    AI developers should ensure that training and validation data reflect diverse populations across race, gender, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. Without this, bias will persist. Datasets should also capture social determinants of mental health, such as poverty, trauma, and discrimination, rather than assuming clinical presentations are uniform.
  2. Transparency, explainability, and human oversight
    Patients and clinicians should know if an AI tool is being used and how it functions, and they should remain able to challenge its outputs. Human clinicians must retain decision-making responsibility; AI should augment, not replace, human judgement, especially in mental-health care.
  3. Bias-testing and ongoing evaluation
    AI tools should be tested for fairness and performance across demographic groups before deployment, and, once deployed, they should be continuously monitored. One large study found that AI recommendations varied significantly by race, gender, and income.
    Also, mitigation techniques are emerging to reduce bias in speech- or behavior-based models.
  4. Rights to remedy and accountability
    When AI-driven systems produce harmful or discriminatory outcomes, individuals must have paths to redress. Clear accountability must be established among developers, providers, and institutions. Regulatory frameworks should reflect human rights standards: non-discrimination, equal treatment, and access to care of quality.
  5. Psychological safety and dignity
    Mental health tools must respect the dignity of individuals, allow for cultural nuance, and avoid pathologizing individuals based purely on demographic algorithms. The design of AI tools should consider psychological impacts: does this tool enhance trust, reduce stigma, and facilitate care, or does it increase anxiety, self-doubt, or disengagement?
  6. Translate rights into policy and practice
    States and professional bodies should integrate guidelines for AI in mental health into regulation, licensing, and accreditation structures. Civil society engagement, which includes patient voices, mental-health advocates, and rights organizations, is critical to shaping responsible implementation.

Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Risks

AI has enormous potential to improve access to mental health care, personalize care, and detect risks earlier than ever before. But, as with many new technologies, the impacts will not be equal by default. Without a proactive focus on bias, human rights, and psychological nuance, we risk a two-tier system: those who benefit versus those left behind or harmed.

In a favorable scenario, AI tools become transparent and inclusive, and they empower both clinicians and patients. They support, rather than supplant, human judgement; they recognize diversity of presentation; they strengthen trust and equity in mental health care.
In a less favorable scenario, AI solidifies existing disparities, misdiagnoses or omits vulnerable groups, and erodes trust in mental-health systems, compounding rights violations with psychological harm.

The path that materializes will depend on choices made today: how we design AI tools, how we regulate them, and how we embed rights and psychological insight into their use. For people seeking mental health support, equity and dignity must remain at the heart of innovation.

Conclusion

The use of AI in mental health diagnostics offers promise, but it also invites serious rights-based scrutiny. From equality of access and non-discrimination to privacy, dignity and psychological safety, the human rights stakes are real and urgent. Psychologists, technologists, clinicians, regulators and rights advocates must work together to ensure that AI supports mental health for all, not just for some. When bias is allowed to persist, the consequences are not only technical, but they’re also human.

Neurorights and Mental Privacy

Neurons cells concept, whitehoune, #170601825
Image 1: Conceptual illustration of neuron cells, whitehoune, Adobe Express Stock Images, #170601825

As neuroscience and commercial neurotechnology advance, a new human-rights conversation is emerging: who controls the contents of the mind? This question, framed as “neurorights,” aims to protect mental privacy, personal identity, and cognitive liberty as technologies that can read, interpret, or modulate brain activity move from labs into clinics and consumer markets.

Imagine a person using a sleek, wireless headband marketed to boost productivity. The device measures tiny electrical signals from their scalp, brainwaves that reflect attention, stress, and fatigue levels. This neural data is sent to a companion app that promises personalized “focus insights.” Yet behind the scenes, that same data can be stored, analyzed, and even shared with advertisers or insurers who want to predict behavioral patterns. Similar EEG-based devices are already used in classrooms, workplaces, and wellness programs, raising questions about who owns the data produced directly by our brains and how it might shape future decisions about employment, education, or mental health.

What are neurorights?

“Neurorights” is an umbrella term for proposed protections covering mental privacy (control over access to one’s neural data), cognitive liberty (the freedom to think without undue intrusion or manipulation), mental integrity (protection from harmful interference with brain function), and fair access to cognitive enhancements. Advocates argue these protections are needed because neural signals, unlike most data, are deeply tied to personal identity, emotion, and thought.

Why human rights framing matters

Framing these issues as human-rights questions does more than add vocabulary; it shifts the burden from optional ethics to enforceable obligations. Rights language foregrounds duties of states and powerful actors (companies, employers, security services) A rights framework also helps center vulnerability. People detained in criminal justice systems, psychiatric patients, low-income communities, and marginalized groups may face disproportionate risks of coercive or exploitative uses of neurotechnology.

The psychological stakes concerning selfhood

Psychology offers essential insights into why neural intrusions are psychologically distinct from other privacy breaches. Anticipated or actual access to one’s neural signals can change behavior, prompting self-censorship, anxiety about inner experiences, or altered identity narratives as people adapt to the possibility that their private mental states might be exposed, interpreted, or changed.

Moreover, interventions that modulate mood, memory, or decision-making, whether therapeutic or commercial, reach into capacities that underpin agency and moral responsibility. Psychology research shows that perceived loss of agency can undermine motivation, increase helplessness, and disrupt social relationships; applied at scale, these individual effects could reshape community life and civic participation.

Current technologies and real-world uses

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), invasive implants, noninvasive electroencephalography (EEG) headsets, and machine-learning models that decode neural patterns are no longer just speculative. Companies developing clinical implants aimed at restoring lost motor function and consumer devices marketed for wellness, focus, or gaming generate neural data that, if mishandled, could reveal health conditions, emotional states, or behavioral tendencies.

Reports and investigations have raised alarms about both safety and governance, questioning lab practices, clinical oversight, and whether companies adequately protect highly sensitive neural signals. Meanwhile, policymakers and researchers are documenting opaque data practices among consumer neurotech firms and urging regulators to treat neural data as especially sensitive.

Where governments and institutions are acting

Latin America has been a notable early mover on neurorights. Chile passed constitutional protections and subsequent legislation explicitly recognizing rights tied to mental privacy and brain integrity, signaling a precautionary approach to neurotechnology governance. Regional advocacy and legal scholarship have spread the debate through Mexico, Brazil, and other jurisdictions.

Outside Latin America, regulatory efforts differ. Subnational privacy laws in places like Colorado have moved to include neural or biological data under sensitive-data protections, and U.S. senators have urged federal scrutiny of how companies handle brain data. At the international level, UNESCO and other bodies are mapping ethical frameworks for neurotech and its impact on freedom of thought and personal identity.

Psychological harms and social inequality

Human-rights concern about neurotech is not simply theoretical. Psychological harms from intrusive neurotechnology can include sustained anxiety about mental privacy, identity disruption if neural signatures are used to label or stigmatize people, and coerced behavioral modification in institutional settings.

These harms are likely to be unequally distributed, with some groups facing fewer safeguards and greater exposure to surveillance or coercion. Rights-based governance should therefore combine privacy protections with equity measures, ensuring safeguards are accessible to those most at risk.

Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980
Image 2: Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980

Benefits and risks

After discussing so many potential risks of neurotech, it’s important to acknowledge that this technology also has legitimate benefits: neurotechnologies offer therapeutic promise for paralysis, severe depression, epilepsy, and other conditions where traditional treatments fall short. The human-rights approach is not about halting innovation; it’s about steering it so benefits don’t come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, dignity, or mental integrity.

Principles for rights-respecting governance

Based on human-rights norms and psychological science, several practical principles can help guide policy and practice:

  1. Mental-privacy-first data rules. Neural data should be treated as inherently sensitive, requiring explicit, revocable, and informed consent for collection, use, and sharing, plus clear limits on secondary uses.
  2. Strong procedural safeguards in clinical research. Trials for invasive devices must meet rigorous safety, animal-welfare, and informed-consent standards to protect participants’ welfare and dignity.
  3. Transparency and oversight for commercial neurotech. Companies should disclose data flows, model-training practices, and any commercial sharing of neural signals, and independent audits and enforceable penalties should deter misuse.
  4. Protection against coercion. Employment, school, or criminal-justice settings should be barred from coercively requiring neural monitoring or interventions without robust legal protections and judicial oversight.
  5. Equity and access. Policies should avoid creating two-tier systems where only affluent groups receive safe, beneficial neurotech while others suffer surveillance or low-quality interventions; public health pathways for safe therapeutic access are essential.
  6. Legal recognition of cognitive liberties. Where feasible, codifying protections for mental privacy and mental integrity, at least as part of sensitive-data regimes and health-privacy laws, creates enforceable rights rather than aspirational principles.

What psychology researchers can do

Psychologists and behavioral scientists are well placed to measure and communicate the human impacts of neurorights policy choices. Empirical studies can probe how perceived neural surveillance influences stress, self-concept, and social behavior; intervention trials can test consent processes and mental-privacy safeguards; and qualitative work can amplify vulnerable groups’ lived experiences.

What civil society and rights advocates should watch

Advocates should monitor corporate data practices and any opaque sharing of neural signals, laws that would allow state access to neural data for security or law-enforcement purposes without adequate safeguards, and the commercialization of consumer BCIs that escape medical regulation yet collect deeply personal neural information. Public interest litigation, public education campaigns, and multi-stakeholder policy forums can help shape accountable pathways.

A cautious optimism

The rise of neurorights shows that society can respond proactively to emerging technologies. Chile’s early steps and subnational privacy laws signal that legal systems can adapt to protect inner life, and UNESCO and scientific communities are actively debating ethical frameworks. But these steps are the beginning, not a solution. Meaningful protection requires global attention, interdisciplinary research, and enforceable rules that place human dignity and psychological well-being at the center.

Conclusion

Neurotechnology promises real benefits for health and human flourishing, but it also raises unprecedented questions about mental privacy and the boundaries of state and corporate power. A human-rights approach, guided by psychological evidence about identity, agency, and harm, offers a way to balance innovation with dignity. Protecting the privacy and integrity of our minds is not just technical policy; it’s a defense of what it means to be a person.

“Hidden in Plain Sight”: Child Sex Trafficking in Alabama

On a humid summer morning in 2025, investigators in Bibb County, Alabama, followed a tip to a property behind a small home in the city of Brent. They say they discovered an underground bunker that had been repurposed into a site of horrific abuse involving at least 10 children, ages 3 to 15. Seven individuals, some of them related to the victims, were arrested on charges that included human trafficking, rape, sexual torture, and kidnapping. The sheriff called it the worst case he had seen in three decades, and more arrests could still come as the investigation develops.

Adobe Stock. File #: 297986967; ‘Shadows in a dark black room.’ By Светлана Евграфова

Stories like this are shocking, but they are not isolated. Sex trafficking thrives in secrecy and shame, and it depends on community silence to survive. This post explains what sex trafficking is under federal and Alabama law, how recent state legislation increased penalties, what warning signs look like in everyday settings, and exactly how to report concerns safely.

What the Law Means by “Sex Trafficking”

Federal law (TVPA & 18 U.S.C. § 1591)

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) is the main federal law to fight human trafficking. It created programs to prevent trafficking, protect survivors, and prosecute traffickers. A key part of this law is 18 U.S.C. § 1591, which makes sex trafficking a serious federal crime. It says that anyone who recruits, transports, or profits from someone in sex trafficking, especially minors, or adults forced by fraud, threats, or coercion, can face very long prison sentences and hefty fines. The law focuses on both holding traffickers accountable and assisting survivors in rebuilding their lives. Importantly, force, fraud, or coercion does not need to be proven when the victim is under 18. That is the bright line of federal law: a child cannot consent to commercial sex.

Adobe Stock. File #: 298570791; ‘Stop child abuse. Human is not a product.’ By AtjananC.

Alabama makes human trafficking a serious crime under its criminal code.

  • First-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-152): This covers forcing someone into sexual servitude or exploiting a minor for sex.
  • Second-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-153): This includes recruiting, transporting, or making money from trafficking, even if the person isn’t directly exploiting the victim.

In April 2024, Alabama passed the “Sound of Freedom Act” (HB 42). This law increased penalties: if someone is convicted of first-degree trafficking involving a minor, they must receive a life sentence, making the punishment even stronger than the usual Class A felony.

Before HB 42, Alabama’s Class A felonies carried 10–99 years or life. The new law removes judicial discretion for minor-victim cases by requiring at least life imprisonment upon conviction for first-degree trafficking.

Adobe Stock; File #209721316; ‘Offender criminal locked in jail’. By methaphum

Why “Coercion” Isn’t Always What You Think

In the public imagination, trafficking looks like kidnapping by strangers. Sometimes it is. More often, it looks like grooming and manipulation by someone the child knows, an older “boyfriend,” a family member, a family acquaintance, someone who offers rides, cash, substances, or a place to crash. Under both federal and Alabama law, proof of force, fraud, or coercion is not required when the victim is under 18, because the law recognizes how easily minors can be exploited.

Where Sex Trafficking Hides—And the Red Flags

Trafficking can occur in short-term rentals, hotels, truck stops, private residences, and online (through social media, gaming platforms, and messaging apps). No community is immune – rural, suburban, and urban areas all see cases. You may notice a child who:

  • Is suddenly disengaged from school and activities
  • Has unexplained injuries
  • Has new “friends” and gifts
  • Has an adult who answers for them
  • Has restricted movement
  • Has signs of deprivation
  • Appears coached in what to say.

Adobe Stock: File #:176601576. Woman sitting on bed in room with light from window. By yupachingping

Educators, coaches, healthcare providers, youth pastors, and even neighbors are often the first to spot concerns. Alabama’s recent case in Bibb County proves that abuse networks can be family-linked and community-embedded, not organized by only outsiders. Trust your instincts; the law backs you up when you report in good faith.

If You See Something: How to Report in Alabama

  • Immediate danger? Call 911.
  • Children (under 18): In Alabama, make a report to your county Department of Human Resources (DHR) or local law enforcement. DHR maintains a county-by-county contact directory and guidance on how to report child abuse/neglect.
  • National Human Trafficking Hotline (24/7): 1-888-373-7888, text 233733 (BeFree), or chat online. Advocates provide confidential help and can connect callers to local services.

A note for mandated reporters:

Alabama’s mandated reporting law (Ala. Code § 26-14-3) requires many professionals, including teachers, healthcare workers, counselors, clergy, and others, to report suspected child abuse or neglect immediately. When in doubt, report; you do not have to prove trafficking to act.

What “Safe Harbor” Means for Children

Across the U.S., Safe Harbor policies aim to treat exploited minors as victims who need services, not as offenders. While states differ in how these protections are implemented, the core idea is consistent: a child who has been bought and sold should receive trauma-informed care and not face prosecution for acts stemming from exploitation. If you work with youth, be aware that Alabama’s human trafficking statutes align with this child-protection lens, and service providers can help navigate options.

A Real Case, Real Lessons

Return to Bibb County. According to reports, some victims in the alleged bunker case were kept underground, drugged, and “sold” to abusers; one suspect is accused of distributing child sexual abuse material. Community members later asked how this could have continued for years without intervention. The uncomfortable answer: it’s easy to miss what you’re not looking for, and it’s hard to report what you can’t imagine happening. That’s why awareness, clear reporting pathways, and strong laws all matter.

Adobe Stock: File #: 495335081 ‘Hidden in plain sight. Closeup shot of a beautiful young womans eye’. By Marco v.d Merwe/peopleimages.com

Practical Steps You Can Take This Week

  1. Save the Hotline: Put 1-888-373-7888 in your phone under “Human Trafficking Hotline.” Please share it with colleagues and students in age-appropriate ways.
  2. Know your local contact: Look up your county DHR reporting number and bookmark it. If you work in a school or clinic, post it in staff areas.
  3. Review indicators: Spend 10 minutes with DHS’s Blue Campaign indicators and guidance for identifying victims. Consider how these apply in your setting (classroom, clinic, church, etc.).
  4. Clarify your duty to report: If you’re a mandated reporter, review Alabama’s summary materials and your organization’s internal protocol to be prepared before a crisis.
  5. Combat myths: Remember, children cannot consent to commercial sex, and proof of force or violence is not required for a child sex trafficking case under federal law.

Bottom Line

Sex trafficking can surface anywhere—including small Alabama towns. Federal law treats any commercial sexual exploitation of a minor as trafficking, full stop; Alabama now backs that stance with one of the harshest penalties in the country when the victim is a child. Awareness is not enough unless it’s paired with action: see the signs, make the call, and let the system take care of the rest.

Adobe Express Stock Images. File #: 300469288; ‘IT’S TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT’. By New Africa

Democracy for Sale: Big Tech’s Silent Takeover

Democracy for Sale: Big Tech’s Silent Takeover

 
KhunKorn Studio. (n.d.). Hand human finger touch cyborg robot white 3d rendering. Adobe Stock Images. https://stock.adobe.com/images/hand-human-finger-touch-cyborg-robot-white-3d-rendering/572824180

In today’s world, technology is more prevalent than ever, shaping nearly every aspect of daily life. Much of this influence can be traced back to a small group of companies known as the Magnificent Seven. Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Nvidia, and Tesla dominate the market, drive economic growth, and lead major tech trends.  These companies have a major concentration of market power in fields such as artificial intelligence, social media, e-commerce, and digital infrastructure. Apple dominates consumer tech, Amazon controls nearly 40% of the U.S. e-commerce market, and Meta owns three of the world’s largest social platforms. This gives them immense influence over both the economy and society at large. With everything in the palm of their hands, there have been concerns raised over data privacy, misinformation, and anti-competitiveness, exemplified by issues such as the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data breach and Amazon’s AI hiring bias scandal. As users of these services, we are often forced to accept practices that negatively affect our personal rights. These practices affect basic human rights stated in articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Privacy is compromised through data tracking, expression is influenced by algorithmic bias, and consumer choice is reduced by monopolistic control.

Article 21 of the UDHR states that “Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.” This includes the right to access information. The U.S. reflects this principle through the Freedom of Information Act, which ensures transparency in public service. When these private corporations control the flow of that information, they compromise the transparency that people have a right to. By controlling things such as search results and advertising, big tech influences the information that citizens see, which can impact public opinion.

The American flag waving in front of a classical building with tall, ornate columns, conveying a sense of patriotism and grandeur.
Nomad_Soul. (n.d.). Washington DC Monuments with USA. Adobe Stock Images. https://stock.adobe.com/images/washington-dc-monuments-with-usa/143177910

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Google, alleging that they built illegal monopolies that harm consumers and suppress innovation. This resulted in an August 2024 U.S. court ruling that Google did maintain an illegal monopoly on online search and a second trial ruling in April 2025 that they had a monopoly in online advertising. One of the main arguments in these cases was Google’s relationship with Apple. Google has claimed that making its search engine the default choice on Apple devices doesn’t restrict consumer choice, since users are technically free to switch. However, the fact that Google paid Apple $18 billion in 2021 alone to remain the default search engine suggests otherwise. This appears to be a classic example of anti-competitive behavior, where companies will use tactics like buying out smaller rivals or using exclusivity contracts. These methods ensure that once these companies dominate a market, they make it nearly impossible for rivals to challenge them.

Through the usage of acquisitions, restrictive contracts, and financial power, companies are able to secure that domination. In the e-commerce market, Independent sellers who rely on Amazon’s platform are often faced with strict controls that limit their autonomy. This behavior has not gone unnoticed. Amazon’s trial is set for October 2026, and the outcome could reshape not only Amazon’s operations but the future of online retail.

Today’s concerns about tech giants mirror debates from the late 19th century. During the Gilded Age, trusts like Standard Oil used their financial power to buy out competitors, corner markets, and control prices. These practices eventually led to the Sherman Antitrust Act and landmark antitrust rulings that sought to restore competition. While researching this topic, I found myself making comparisons more than once. These digital monopolies resemble industrial trusts. Like Standard Oil, they leverage size and resources to dominate markets, eliminate competition, and limit consumer choice. From a human rights standpoint, there should be more urgency of applying antitrust principles to modern technology.

Close-up of hands using a smartphone in a dimly lit setting. The focus is on the screen and fingers, with blurred lights in the background, suggesting nighttime.
Syda Productions. (n.d.). Business, Technology and People concept – Close up of businesswoman hands with smartphone. Adobe Stock Images. https://stock.adobe.com/images/business-technology-and-people-concept-close-up-of-businesswoman-hands-with-smartphone/223178955

The problem goes beyond markets. Just how Standard Oil shaped politics back then, today’s tech giants extend beyond their businesses and into the functions of government itself. Some sectors of governments outsource aspects of their work to private tech firms, blurring the line between corporate power and public authority. For example, police forces hire private hacking firms to gain access to devices. When unelected corporations wield this kind of power, accountability shifts from government officials to CEOs and shareholders. Democracy is dependent upon government responsibility and honesty, and when this is compromised, the power of the citizens is taken away.

Some companies use private technology to process data or discriminate unintentionally through algorithms. The spread of misinformation and propaganda has been given space to thrive on platforms like Facebook and YouTube. Harmful rhetoric often spreads unchecked, while some political content is selectively censored by being removed or restricting accounts. Users are exposed to unchecked information that threatens informed civic engagement. For example, during the 2020 Covid 19 pandemic, misinformation, election conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccine propaganda was rampant on social media platforms.

Four women protest holding "Love" and "Peace" signs with peace symbols. They stand united, some with fists raised, in front of a historic building.
Cultura Creative. (n.d.). Activists holding peace signs protesting in street. Adobe Stock Images. https://stock.adobe.com/images/activists-holding-peace-signs-protesting-in-street/481480070

To protect human rights, there need to be accountability mechanisms and transparency requirements for digital platforms similar to those imposed on industries like food, medicine, and automobiles. Overseas, the European Union’s Digital Services Act now requires large tech platforms to disclose how their algorithms recommend content and to remove harmful misinformation quickly. This could be a potential approach that could serve as a model for U.S. regulators. Protecting democracy in this new digital age also requires a human rights stance. When companies control markets, digital infrastructure and the flow of information, they hold control over citizens’ freedom to choose. The rise of the Magnificent Seven has fueled incredible technological innovation, but their dominance is increasingly monopolistic in nature. Consumers deserve a market that rewards innovation, protects privacy, and ensures real choice. Addressing these challenges requires both awareness and advocacy. As citizens, we can push for stronger digital privacy laws and hold elected officials accountable for enforcing antitrust and transparency standards. We could also support open-source alternatives to big tech platforms. Technology is meant to serve the people, not the other way around. The history of antitrust regulation shows that concentrated corporate power can be challenged, and, for the sake of democracy and human rights, it must be.