SPHR19: A Call for Innovation and Creativity in Advocacy

As part of the 2019 Social Practice of Human Rights Conference, the University of Dayton Human Rights Center and OpenGlobalRights collaborated with JustLabs to facilitate creative prototyping workshops around the conference’s three main themes: Eco-Economic Transformation, Technological Transformation, and Social & Political Transformation. 

ABOUT THE LABS

JustLabs is a global collective working to transform the human rights movement by creating spaces for innovating, testing, and sharing solutions. JustLabs approaches problem-solving by bringing together strategies from a variety of traditions and disciplines, including cognitive psychology, design-thinking, foresight, popular education, and contemplative practices. The lab methodology is designed to move participants from deep analysis of a problem to visualizing and bringing to life simple yet creative solutions. The Social Practice of Human Rights workshops were designed to push participants to produce solutions, while giving them a taste of the broader lab methodology that JustLabs uses to develop narrative campaigns around the world

THE PROCESS

Each lab began with dynamic activities to open participants up to thinking creatively, to encourage teamwork, and to help organize participants into smaller groups. Once in teams, groups worked to create problem statements that identified a specific challenge, without becoming so specific as to limit solutions. The teams gathered together to present their initial problem statements and collect feedback before returning to their groups to revise.

The next stage was to contextualize the problem by mapping actors on the overlapping spectrums of affected by issue, motivated to act, and influence. After a “sensing” break (where participants were encouraged to survey non-participants to bring outside knowledge into the room) and another dynamic activity, groups began solutions brainstorming. This started with a round robin writing exercise, where participants wrote their individual ideas for solutions, and provided each other with constructive feedback by passing their papers in turn for comment.

The final stage was prototyping, where groups were tasked with bringing their ideas to life their by communicating it in a way that conveyed the experience at the core of the idea. Prototypes varied from storyboards to skits to interactive playdough exhibits.

THE RESULTS

The SPHR labs provided a condensed version of what is usually the first step in a long iterative process of testing, revision, and implementation. Reinforcing the conference’s focus on the practice of human rights, these snapshots were planned for providing the experience of solutions-thinking. While challenged by the quick pace and the broad topic categories, participants were able to produce thought-provoking problem statements and solutions. These statements varied from deconstructing whiteness through visual mediums to developing technology for and with social movements.

Prototypes were equally diverse, including the How colorful is your city TOOLKIT of local indicators to help build movements for SDG implementation locally; Woke, INC., a company that funds pitches for engaging racism through multimedia; a campaign with the university basketball team to encourage action on the climate crisis; and a Corporate Capture Cartoon featuring stories of how corporate capture affects everyday people around the country. 

Together, both the products and the process of the labs speak to the broader aims of the conference: get participants thinking about creative, tangible solutions to the complex problems to which the SPHR space is devoted.

Highlights of problem statements and their corresponding solutions are:

“OUR STORIES / WHAT THEY SHOULD BE”Problem Statement: How might we deconstruct whiteness through the use of visual culture, because the perpetuation of racism takes place in the visual realm.

Prototype: “Our stories / What they should be” pitched a semi-permanent multimedia installation in a dorm room helping to make visible and heard people of color’s experiences on university campuses, as well as their wishes/visions for a more just campus culture. Presented in playdough, this prototype envisioned an interactive space that localizes conversations about racism, complete with recorded, multi-generational stories, resources, and opportunities to contribute.

THE STUDENT-TECH DEVELOPMENT COMPETITION

Problem Statement: Social movements use the technology that is currently available (kind of). How might we better design/adapt technology for and with social movements because existing technology is beholden to interests that can run counter to the aims/goals of human rights.

Prototype: The Student-Tech Development Competition pitched the idea of a regionally-sponsored national competition to develop technological tools for social movements. Leveraging the socially-conscious potential of mid-sized regional business, the competition would be sponsored by university departments and such businesses, and would call for students to put together a multidisciplinary team, seek expert inputs, and propose a design for unique technology made specifically for social movements. The campaign was acted out, and the team proposed a physical plug-in for a cellphone that allowed for users to easily communicate off-network, and which could be discarded quickly if needed. The pitch was designed for use in areas where social movements face intense repression and surveillance (Hong Kong, Climate Strike, etc). 

 

SOLUTIONS HARVEST

Problem Statement: How might we create a tool that anyone can use to connect/assess our decisions to solutions as consumers/changemakers for climate justice because changing our behavior as consumers will not solve the climate crisis. We need mobilization towards bigger solutions. Key concepts: tool, decisions, and assessment towards more radical approaches. 

Prototype: Solutions Harvest was an idea pitched to combat activism fatigue and  build a sense of local community within the university around big problems like the climate crisis. This prototype provides time off from university duties to work in a community garden that will help support the university dining service. It begins with the “Solutions Harvest”, a day where university members (at all levels) gather together for a meal to discuss environmental challenges they face in their work, and possible solutions/alterations that could address them. Iterations of this meal would continue to occur—through mixing the university community for cross-cutting conversations—as a way of continuing to build support and local action on climate. Concurrently, the university would begin a community garden, where everyone at the university would be given one day/month free to work. In this way, the university would actively build a space community, contribute to local climate solutions, and build in time for self-care.

Technology and the Second Wave of Social and Political Movements

In 2014, the world witnessed the first wave of social and political movements through sit-in protests, such as the Umbrella Movement, in Hong Kong, China. The movement was protesting the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress’ refusal to change the election process for the government’s Legislative Council. The decision was viewed as anti-democratic and a violation of people’s right to vote and elect representatives for a responsive government. Although intended as peaceful protest, the government’s violent and brutal response involved physical force, guns, tear gas, and detention. This quieted the active protest, while simultaneously fostering the start of a refined second wave. 

At the heart of understanding this second wave of political social movement, is Zeynep Tufekci: a global social activist and academic who researches the intersection of technology and social movements. She has embedded herself with everyday citizens and grass-root social activists in Hong Kong to explore how these intersections adapt the movement and impact the force of this push to reform. Technology has given a historical number of people a social and political voice. In Hong Kong, the movement is demanding the right to elect a government that will represent their newly found voices.

Sustained Protests

Tufekci regularly reverts back to two simple words emanating from her immersion in social movements: “BE WATER.” This describes modern day activism at the intersection of technology and social rights movements. Social media is global and animates people to unify and enact change in response to everyday frustrations. Social media acts as a foundational platform for activists to universally protest various social and political crises without limits as to who and where people can show up and speak out.

Technology enables global force and malleability of protests, so movements no longer need to be in one location or have one leader for people to unify and advocate for reform of oppressive regimes. As these political and social demands are increasingly met with violence and aggression from powerful elite, technology allows movements to adapt towards more sustainable, dispersed, and fluid methods of protest. Draconian governments are ultimately frustrated by these adaptations because unified and sustained protests make government reform inevitable as the government efforts to oppose reform are gradually undermined.

Contemporary Imperfections

Technology has enabled a more globally unified front against draconian governments, and removed identifiable leaders for governments to target for retribution. However, there are clearly weaknesses in the approach. As Tufekci described it, leaderless movements commonly face a “paralysis of decision making” during post-protest phases without a “steering wheel” to guide the group toward the movement’s unified conclusion. Each movement faces moments when a decision must be made on the best approach to reform or advocate change. Examples include: do you compromise with the government and end the protests? Do you continue to push back for more because compromise isn’t enough? Without clear leadership, there is no one to make these complicated decisions at key points in the movement. This can weaken the impact and effectiveness of the movement, or if too many opposing decisions are simultaneously made, fracture the movement altogether. 

Authoritarian Blindness

As activists take advantage of technology, so have authoritarian governments under fire. The Hong Kong government has increasingly relied on facial recognition and photography identification, as well as cell phone tracking technology, to identify people who are important within the movements, and have used social media to flood misinformation in hopes of decreasing activism and controlling the narrative. The government in Hong Kong has also previously shut down public transportation to remove the ability to travel and disperse protests. Other tactics include shutting down the internet to prohibit immediate communications amongst protestors as was done in Egypt.

However, Tufekci sees these technological strategies failing to keep people “in check” because of “authoritarian blindness.” Instead of using technology to understand what their people are voicing to enact responsive change, governments are using technology to further oppress their people. They are blind to how these various technological strategies are cultivating greater unification and adaptive activism, instead of government control. Authoritarian blindness is thus opening technological avenues of evasion for the activists (i.e. the use of non-algorithmic platforms instead of Facebook and Twitter, inclusion of masks to hide their identities, and the easy choice to ignore the flood of misinformation that is disseminated in a different language than spoken by the people). In this way, “authoritarian blindness” in their technological oppression might just lead to government demise. 

What’s Next?

In many places, the first wave of movements ended with old-style authoritarian governments being replaced with more tech-savvy authoritarian governments. Now, Tufekci explains that activists in Hong Kong view this second wave as their greatest chance to achieve their aims. She believes that this movement is not likely to stop until then.

On a larger scale, the question of “what’s next” demands exploring whether confrontational methods will become the norm. Legitimacy of social and political movement methods, Tufekci elaborated on, depends on the political climate and what methods are available. In Hong Kong, the people felt that peaceful methods were ignored and a desperation to be heard gave way to the current unified confrontation that can’t be ignored. Yet in the United States, confrontation might not be the most legitimate method with greater access to effective peaceful methods because of the existence of a more responsive government grounded in public elections; such as the people in Hong Kong desire. We appear to be undergoing a transitional period of social unrest intended to address corruption of the elite and center the voices of and gain more power for the oppressed.

Sure, there are contemporary imperfections with current second wave social movements grounded on new technology, but as long as oppressors act, the oppressed will adapt, and the contemporary imperfections will become the strengths that ideally ultimately lead to authoritarian downfall.

Stay tuned! We will be featuring more reflections, photos and videos from SPHR '19.

Seeking to Restore Human Dignity on US-Mexico Border

I attended a powerful session at the Social Practice of Human Rights Conference on “Human Rights in Central America,” moderated by UD’s Professor of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Miranda Hallett. Drawing on a wealth of knowledge, experts steeped in the complexities of Central American experience of migration discussed this current political moment and the movement needed to address these complex issues. Here are my four key take-aways derived from listening to Mileydi Guilarte from Counterpart El Salvador, Jeanne Rikkers from Cristosal, and Abby Wheatley from Arizona State University.

Mileydi Guilarte from Counterpart El Salvador, Jeanne Rikkers from Cristosal, Abby Wheatley from Arizona State University, and Miranda Hallett from the University of Dayton.

First, the situation along our border is not a national security crisis but instead a humanitarian crisis caused by various U.S. policies and practices, rooted in the political directives taken by both current and past administrations to increasingly militarize the border.  The “Prevention through Deterrence” approach is not new. It is at least a couple decades old and uses death as a way to deter people from crossing the border. The result is a “weaponized desert,” which has left a trail of border deaths counted above 7,000 migrants by authorities to potentially above 10,000 migrants by advocacy organizations accumulating since 1998 to the present. This deterrence policy is further evident through the attempts to penalize humanitarian aid workers who provide water for migrants crossing through increasingly desolate desert regions and by the increase of border patrol checkpoints, which now can be spotted as far as seventy miles away. 

Second, it seems apparent to me that both past and current presidential administrations have concentrated their border enforcement efforts on the detention of migrants recently arriving to seek asylum. This detention policy is being used as secondary deterrence policy. Evidence supporting this includes the expansion of family detention and the administration’s determination to attack the Flores settlement agreement. This agreement has been in place for over two decades and includes provisions which set limits on the length of time children can be incarcerated, requires the government to implement standards relating to the care and treatment of children, and obligates the government to place children in the “least restrictive” environment based on their age and needs. Additionally, within the past year, the Supreme Court determined that immigrants in detention no longer had the right to petition for a bond hearing every six months. Further, the location of detention centers are increasingly far from cities, making it difficult for family members to visit detained migrants or for them to obtain legal counsel. Even more concerning is that policies increasing the criminalization of border crossers are becoming more prevalent, whether through zero tolerance policies or the addition of both federal and misdemeanor charges for entry without authorization or multiple entries.

Third, I was taken by the message that a holistic solution to the humanitarian crisis is required. Rejecting the idea of a simple policy solution to the crisis, the holistic solution needs to take into consideration the historical impact of U.S. intervention in the Central American region, including U.S. exclusion of certain groups of migrants based on race. The reality is that the displacement of Central American migrants is due to various traditional push factors including, but not limited to: chronic violence, corruption, organized crime, lack of economic opportunity, political instability, but also to newer push factors such as global climate change and the growing environmental crisis facing many countries. Examining these push factors in depth will help to create a more holistic solution.

Finally, I was struck by the urgent need to reform our current asylum system, which severely limits the recognition of human suffering for migrants from this region. The interpretation of our understanding of asylum in the U.S. must be widened to include more vulnerable migrants, not further restricted as it has been consistently by adverse Board of Immigration Appeals determinations and administrative restrictions under Attorneys General appointed by President Trump. Furthermore, immigrant advocates and asylum lawyers must fight back against the current asylum system, which is plagued by the perverse demand to erode the complexity of one person’s story into a short narrative that will “win a person’s asylum case.” A reformed asylum system must see each migrant as a full person, a person who has extracted themselves at great peril and with tremendous suffering out of a region entangled in violence. Advocates must work to build comprehensive views of human families caught up in this crisis with a long term aim of helping to build power in immigrant communities. This can be done in part by creating spaces wherein migrants can tell their whole story, seek solace from others who have shared aspects of their journey, and enable themselves to become advocates for long term solutions to this humanitarian crisis. 

In conclusion, I believe that immigration activists, advocates, and attorneys must continue to respond to this issue as the humanitarian crisis that it is. We must focus on challenging the national dialogue surrounding asylum and continue to create spaces where we can share knowledge with the general population surrounding the difficult political, economic, and historical issues driving migration, while understanding the complexity of experience of migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. From these spaces and armed with a new depth of knowledge, new coalitions of immigrants and allies must urgently push forward together to demand solutions that embrace human dignity and include expanded protections for vulnerable populations both in their migratory journey and their legal pursuit of asylum.

Stay tuned! We will be featuring more reflections, photos and videos from SPHR '19.

Reimagining Social Justice through the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

Ohio Community Organizer and Blacktivist Meets Opal Tometi, Co-founder of Black Lives Matter, and Flame is Reignited

Author: Jameela Henderson

Photo credit: Youssef Farhat. Pictured left to right: Opal Tometi, Darsheel Kaur, Jameela Henderson, Amaha Sellassie

I recently saw Opal Tometi, co-founder of Black Lives Matter (BLM), speak at the Social Practice of Human Rights Conference 2019. Tometi’s keynote addressed how BLM created a space for people to organize around the government system’s broken power dynamic and the over-policing of Black bodies. The three women co-founders of BLM: Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi, knew that black people in America needed something to rally us. The hashtag was the rally point; it allowed individuals all over the world to share the same battle cry throughout many different social media platforms. BLM created a space where we could talk about white supremacy and how it affects every aspect of our lives. BLM stands for real justice. Many times, when a white person or police officer shoots a person of color, the charges are dropped, or the perpetrator is found not guilty at trial. Less commonly, the perpetrator will receive a guilty verdict and is held accountable for their actions. Although this is considered justice to some, the real justice would be for Black people to live. Justice is when a Black person is never murdered for the color of their skin again. 

Opal reflected on the rage, hurt, sadness, and grief I felt when we watched as the media and court tried to put Trayvon Martin on trial for his own murder instead of the man who took Trayvon’s life. The defense put Trayvon on trial to argue that  Zimmerman feared for his life, when in reality Zimmerman stalked the boy and murdered him. I remember when Zimmerman’s verdict came down and I was in disbelief. I thought that he would undoubtedly be convicted because of the recorded calls to the police, his refusal to back down and leave Trayvon alone, and the fact that “stand your ground” could not possibly apply in this situation.

I have followed BLM from the beginning of the simple social media tag #BlackLivesMatter, to the sweeping movement that ensued. The trial of Trayvon Martin and Black Lives Matter movement ignited my flame. I was very active in BLM, so I was personally involved in many of the stories and events Opal spoke about. In October 2014, there was a call for justice, #JusticeforJohnCrawford, so I joined the Ohio Student Association and other community members in occupying  the Beavercreek police station to protest the death of John Crawford III. A group of young people were demanding the police make systemic changes, be accountable, and fire the man that murdered John Crawford III. This was my first experience being involved in fighting for justice for Black Lives. I also went to Ferguson, Missouri for “Ferguson October” to protest the killing of Mike Brown. I remember feeling loved and important when #BlackLivesMatter was created: the movement felt like home.  

Opal explained how 40% of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in the U.S. are Black, despite the fact that Black people make up 14% of the U.S. population. There has to be systemic change to the justice system because it disproportionately affects Black people. We all have to work together to reimagine present day laws, overcome systematic oppression, and renew the  justice system. 

BLM created a cultural shift in the US and in me. There is anti-Black racism happening all over the world. All of our liberation is tied to one other, so activists in other countries who also are affected by over-policing have been waiting for the black population in America to wake up and fight for change. 

Opal's keynote impacted me greatly; it reignited my passion for social justice...it reminded me why I fell in love with social justice and community change. It reminded me of the many reasons I have to continue to fight for real justice. This experience helped me reimagine practicing law and creating community change through social justice. I will continue to fight for justice through my practice of law. I will continue to fight for “Justice” and not just follow the laws that were not created to help people who look like me. 

White People Need to Do Better

Author: Davis Schwartz

“When we say 'Black Lives Matter,' we're not saying that any other life doesn't matter. That has never, ever been our message. Our message has always been from a place of love.” – Opal Tometi.  Human rights are predicated on the notion that they are inherent to everyone “regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.” I spent an evening listening to Opal Tometi, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, and as a white person, this is the message I took away. 

Opal points out that some people misconstrue the message that Black Lives Matter attempts to share with the world. The “All Lives Matter” response to the movement distorts the genesis of the message of Black Lives Matter. As a twitter user so aptly put it: 

"Your neighbour’s house is on fire.  You call 9-11. The firefighters come to put out the fire. Are you and your neighbours going to be like what about our houses? Don’t we all get a little bit of water on our houses? Of course not Maryanne, because your house is not on fire right now and it does not need the attention right now.” @JlTEAGEGE

In a similar vein, those who advocate that “All Lives Matter” by proxy of their message attempt to take resources away from the communities that need support the most. When society or governments evenly spread resources, even to those that do not need the resources, we tend to be under resourced and no change ensues. After all the resource spreading, we are left in the same position where some communities are in a better position than others. This reinforces a status quo of inequality.  

Yet, that begs the question why certain communities are in disadvantaged positions compared to others. The answer is structural racism. The complex system by which racism is developed, maintained, and protected is referred to as structural racism. As activist and writer Frank Leon Roberts said: “Black Lives Matter has always been more of a human rights movement rather than a civil rights movement. BLM's focus has been less about changing specific laws and more about fighting for a fundamental reordering of society wherein Black lives are free from systematic dehumanization.” Structural racism manifests itself in practices such as the racial wealth gap, low Black homeownership, and credit score disparities among racial groups. These structures prioritize white life.

I think we must look to equitable human rights to remedy structural racism. That is to say, we must take affirmative measures to ensure human rights actually exist and can be enjoyed by everyone. Fundamentally, equity enhances fairness amongst the people.  Instead of giving everyone the same tools, each person gets the adequate tools so they can succeed. The introduction of equity into a life is the key to freedom and liberty—the hallmarks of human rights. Human rights do not stop at just freedom and liberty. Human rights include freedom from torture, freedom of association, the right to vote, due process of law, etc. These rights must be thought of in the real sense, and not the theoretical, because when we think of torture in the traditional sense we can lull ourselves into complacency. Simply put, police brutality against minority communities is a type of torture. And thus, an affirmative measure to ensure minority communities (and by-extension white people) are not subjected to police brutality benefits everyone involved. Some may say that equity undermines the universality of human rights, but that misses the point. The point is that some rights are enjoyed more by certain communities, and sometimes measures need to be taken so everyone gets to enjoy that right the same. When we lose sight of the differences between equality and equity—we give room to those who want to undermine both, but under the façade of seeking equality.

To conclude, my message is: do not let Maryanne get water on her house when your house is burning down just to make her feel better, because indulging her destroys an equitable solution to the problem. And that includes educating Maryanne that her house is not—and never has been—on fire; so, she needs to allow the water to put out the flames of structural racism.