2022-23 Innovative Teaching Showcase

Portfolio

Babafemi Akinrinade

Fairhaven College

Decentering and Empowering Discussions About Human Rights

What I do

Among other subjects, I teach international human rights in an interdisciplinary context. This covers general human rights, as well as other courses related to the violation of human rights and human dignity. My disciplinary background is international law, which greatly influences a general understanding and application of human rights since its internationalization in 1948. While law generally, and international law specifically, do not have a monopoly on the human rights concept, they do have a strong bearing on its implementation, especially for accountability purposes. Even then, the law struggles to deal with aspects of human rights that cannot easily be legislated upon.

For many, international human rights are fairly straightforward. Or so it appears. Many people know what they are about, but there is disagreement on the specifics of the rights. The “bread and butter” of human rights are the civil and political rights enshrined in many national constitutions and other civil and human rights legislations. The other parts of human rights, the economic, social, and cultural rights, and newer generations of rights are not similarly acknowledged. Even with this division of rights into categories, conversations about those rights again appear straightforward: debates are on either side of those categories, with some sitting comfortably in the middle. With time, the classroom dynamics begin to mirror these divisions. In teaching international human rights, I focus on:

For many, international human rights are fairly straightforward. Or so it appears. Many people know what they are about, but there is disagreement on the specifics of the rights. The “bread and butter” of human rights are the civil and political rights enshrined in many national constitutions and other civil and human rights legislations.

For many, international human rights are fairly straightforward. Or so it appears. Many people know what they are about, but there is disagreement on the specifics of the rights. The “bread and butter” of human rights are the civil and political rights enshrined in many national constitutions and other civil and human rights legislations. The other parts of human rights, the economic, social, and cultural rights, and newer generations of rights are not similarly acknowledged. Even with this division of rights into categories, conversations about those rights again appear straightforward: debates are on either side of those categories, with some sitting comfortably in the middle. With time, the classroom dynamics begin to mirror these divisions. In teaching international human rights, I focus on:

  • the background of the adoption of international human rights laws;
  • the national, regional, and international institutions responsible for creating and implementing those laws;
  • the substantive laws of human rights and the violations thereof;
  • the practices challenging human rights, including culture and tradition; and
  • remedies for human rights violations, including reparations or compensations.

The Difficult Parts

As with many classes, subtle differences begin to emerge in discussions, with obvious discomfort as participants begin to tiptoe around sensitive issues, seen notably in the choice of words and reticence in calling out visible injustices. These represent themselves as challenging or “difficult conversations.” Generally, however, what are “difficult conversations”? Are these conversations about difficult subjects that are beyond the comprehension of the participants? Are these conversations difficult because they are approached from different and possibly irreconcilable positions? Are they difficult because the participants are personally and emotionally invested in the issues and cannot bear to accept the “rightness” or the “wrongness” of their previously held positions (and those on the other side)? Whatever “difficult conversations” are, they seem to be suited for the classroom where, ideally, ideas can be explored, criticized, torn apart, and rebuilt or reconstituted without fear of judgment. Given the state of society today, the classroom also seems to be the perfect laboratory to experiment with these conversations as the participants move back to a non-academic environment after graduation and help to restructure a very fragmented society.

Given the state of society today, the classroom also seems to be the perfect laboratory to experiment with these conversations as the participants move back to a non-academic environment after graduation and help to restructure a very fragmented society.

In the human rights course, various fundamental concepts associated with human rights generate difficulties. For one, it is easy to see human rights violations as a problem of the “other.” For example, a discussion of campus sexual violence generated a pushback that this was a “local” issue and not an “international” human rights issue. Sexual violence on college campuses in the United States is a not “serious” human rights violation, the argument implicitly goes, compared with other “serious” human rights violations around the world. But then, sitting in the same classroom space, are victims and survivors of sexual violence wondering how the issue is not considered worthy of examination in a human rights course. Here, we see a form of “exceptionalism” inadvertently creep in–theirs is a problem challenging the international order; ours are just local issues that are not the business of others, thus, our problem is not as serious as theirs–and the challenge is to make everyone understand that what we consider an “international” issue is a domestic issue in the country where it took place. Another example is a discussion of the ultimate violation of the right to life, genocide. It has taken several generations of the course to get everyone to see that genocide is not a foreign problem; the United States has a history of genocide within its territory. But how does an individual sitting in a class and discussion about genocide come to an understanding that their ancestors may have committed genocide? It is easy to imagine the “other” as committing genocide but not when it is so close to home.

I am on Your Side

Generally, concepts like universalism, relativism, nationalism, ethnicism, multiculturalism, and others are some of the means by which societies and the international system handle “otherness.”3 One of the strongest concepts of international human rights is that of universalism, with the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. Universalism urges and obligates respect for others, with a focus on global equality–everyone has the same set of rights, regardless of location. Relativism rejects transnational norms and promotes respect for difference.4 Universalism is appealing in human rights discourses due to its emphasis on equality, sameness of norms, and the possibility of transnational application of international human rights laws. On the other hand, relativism, which some consider a bane of international human rights, is appealing because of its respect for differences, at a time when leaving others alone has gained currency.

How do we express toleration for societies that violate or permit the violation of rights, especially on massive scales? How do we evaluate situations that are an affront to our sensibilities in Western societies? Do we judge or not? What language do we use in framing our disagreements?

How do these concepts relate to the implementation of human rights? When we consider challenges to human rights, the difficulties become clearer. Culture is a constant challenge to the application of human rights norms. Should human rights respect cultural differences? An absolute universalist would most likely disagree because human rights are universal, and culture should bow at the human rights altar. A relativist will respect culture, however. When the culture conversation is framed as a choice of accepting or condemning the values and practices of other societies, do these positions shift?

How do we express toleration for societies that violate or permit the violation of rights, especially on massive scales? How do we evaluate situations that are an affront to our sensibilities in Western societies? Do we judge or not? What language do we use in framing our disagreements? There is the case of female circumcision (usually expressed in more violent words: female genital cutting or female genital mutilation, conjuring barbarity, savagery, hence the need for saviors). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 200 million women and girls have been affected by this practice and the numbers are concentrated in Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of Asia, with increasing numbers in Europe, Australia, and North America.5 There is an effort that has gained momentum to ban the practice worldwide through national laws. However, the more one looks, the less one sees, or the more confusing it gets. The WHO advocates total elimination of the practice and calls for laws prohibiting medical professionals from mutilating anyone. Countries also fall in line, joining the chorus. The U.S., in a travel fact sheet claims that: “The U.S. Government opposes FGM/C, no matter the type, degree, or severity, and no matter what the motivation for performing it.” It considers the practice a “serious human rights abuse, and a form of gender-based violence and child abuse.”6 One does not need to look far to see that the claims are half-truths. U.S. law prohibits female circumcision only if done on anyone under 18 years and without consent.7 This is the same for Canadian8 and Irish laws.9 However, advocates for its elimination are likely unaware of these permissive laws within their countries.

In view of such contradictions, how do we have meaningful conversations on the practice of female circumcision? As abhorrent as it appears to many, the practice continues because of appeals to culture and other reasons within affected societies. How do we judge those? While Western countries can legislate on any practice within their countries, how acceptable should it be to seek to change laws in other countries to suit populations of Western countries?

Other issues beyond female circumcision also generate their own controversies, depending on the approach adopted. What framework guides a conversation on the practices of son preference expressed through feminicide via sex selective abortions, honor killings, witch hunting, caste, parentally determined marriages, dress codes in public, incest, widowhood rites, e.g., bathing the corpse of a man and requiring the widow to drink the bath water to prove her innocence? That these practices are in certain parts of the world with which many of the students may be unfamiliar makes conversations challenging. Many do not want to sit in judgment over the practices because they do not “know” enough about them, while at the same time they are very uneasy that human beings like them go through such practices. Do we accept or condemn the values of other societies? Are these appropriate instances where judgment is allowed?

As for issues that confront the students in their own society like slavery and its legacies, race and racism, gender inequalities, violence against women and sexual minorities, gun violence, and police brutalities, and discrimination against immigrants, there is much on which to agree and disagree.

As for issues that confront the students in their own society like slavery and its legacies, race and racism, gender inequalities, violence against women and sexual minorities, gun violence, and police brutalities, and discrimination against immigrants, there is much on which to agree and disagree.

How

Setting the tone for these discussions is crucial. Introducing them abruptly may lead to unintended consequences. The issues are not raised to elicit mere sympathies or to feel sorry for the victims of human rights abuses. That there are complex issues within the United States does not mean that those are the only issues worthy of attention. How do we ensure that our common humanity is valued and protected around the world?

The violations of the rights of individuals and of groups of peoples demand our attention and action. In dealing with the issues, it is not enough to burden the law with creating the solutions. The law deals only with the visible layers of very complex problems and the law itself can be a reflection and affirmation of cultural practices. The law can reinforce inequalities while trying to dismantle it.

At the start of the course and through succeeding weeks, the readings and discussions provide hints about the difficult nature of the forthcoming discussions. The course starts with the technical aspects, laying the foundation for the difficult conversations ahead. Along the way, issues come up in some of the topics that indicate what is ahead. These early warning mechanisms ensure that the class is prepared by the time we discuss these more complex issues. There is no point shrouding the discussions in mystery; being open to it allows students to deliberate within themselves on how best to frame their contributions. One goal is that when we have examined these issues at the international level, we can return to discuss similar or other challenges within the United States, with the same rigor and attention to details that mark the prior discussions.

Importance?

Human rights issues involve human beings regardless of location. The violations of the rights of individuals and of groups of peoples demand our attention and action. In dealing with the issues, it is not enough to burden the law with creating the solutions. The law deals only with the visible layers of very complex problems and the law itself can be a reflection and affirmation of cultural practices. The law can reinforce inequalities while trying to dismantle it. A collective effort is needed, including changing the laws and practices of societies, providing justice and accountability for perpetrators and victims of human rights abuses, and prioritizing reparations for those victims. It is important that we should not be rejecting ethnocentrism only to be implicitly affirming it. It is not enough to permit the voices of others only because those voices speak our words and affirm us.

Doing this right will be helpful as we contend with other challenges from segments of society. These challenges question engaging with the world, advocate a narrow conception of history within and outside the United States and prohibit teaching history that accurately reflects the past, seek to further marginalize already marginalized populations and reject the creation of a more just and equal society, and seek to continue the use of the machinery of the government to continue years of oppression.

Footnotes