Human Rights Education – Where do we stand?

by Almuth Wietholtz

On May 13 and 14, 2002 international experts on Human Rights Education (HRE) met at the Center for Applied Policy Research (CAP) in Munich to exchange best-practice examples from the field. The conference was unique insofar as it brought together experts from three main fields – policy making, practice, and research.

After welcoming remarks by Viola Georgi from the CAP, the discussion was opened with a presentation by Nancy Flowers from the Human Rights Resource Center at the University of Minnesota, USA. Her contribution emphasized what was to become the main theme of the conference: a lack of definition for HRE. 50 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, educators and facilitators are still searching for common ground in the field of Human Rights Education.

HRE, according to Nancy Flowers, lacks a theoretical basis due to the fact that governmental bodies, NGOs, and academics all have different perceptions on its nature: While governments, IGOs, and UN agencies primarily adhere to the legal documents, NGOs tend to focus on the educational aspect. Academics, on the other hand, emphasize the underlying ethical and moral values of HRE. With this in mind, it is not surprising that all three produce different outcomes.

What then is the common denominator of all three parties within the "golden triangle” – lawyers, activists, and academics? What it all boils down to, Nancy Flowers suggested, was a certain strong faith. By recognizing the other – indeed, every other person – as alive, one takes part in that non-rational vision that forms the basis of the Human Rights dialogue.

The Panel Discussion at the Goethe Forum

The evening of the first day of the conference was devoted to a public panel discussion at the Goethe-Forum in Munich. The key note was given by Felisa Tibbitts, executive officer of Human Rights Education Associates in Boston. Her presentation set the topic for the evening by pointing out that over the last few years, HRE has been problematized solely for particular societies on a national level. Obviously, this means that HRE has trouble distinguishing itself from other forms of education like peace education or democracy education.

Felisa Tibbitts suggested that HR educators need particular learning theories for certain target groups in order to overcome these problems. These theories could be modeled after the "learning pyramid”, an image that illustrates three emerging models of HRE. At the bottom of the pyramid, there is the "values and awareness model” which focuses on transmitting knowledge about HR via awareness campaigns, school curricula, etc. in order to put pressure on the authorities. Instead of actively fostering the development of practical skills, this model strives to bring students to critical thinking. The second model, labeled the "accountability model”, targets professionals and HR activists in order to train them in monitoring, lobbying, and applying legal norms and practices. The third, the "transformational model”, strives to empower the individual and to teach techniques based on self-reflection and personal experiences.

The key note was followed by an inspiring all-women panel discussion on country-specific HRE programs and their implementation. The first expert to share her views with the audience was Felice Yeban (see also page 1). What she elucidated to be the basic problem of HRE in many Asian countries struck a chord with many others: Whether it be the call for resistance to a strong state in China, or the need to confront communal violence and poverty in South Asia - HR educators must pay respect to the specific national cultures and, correspondingly, adapt their approaches to their situation. HRE according to her definition is thus cultural work.

Michelle Parlevliet from the Center of Conflict Resolution in Cape Town, South Africa, shed some light on the sometimes hidden sensitivities of various ethnic populations within a society. Namely, the black population in South Africa tends to be rather cynical towards educational programs in general, since within the apartheid system, education had been used to oppress the people. Any adversarial approach within HRE furthers only resentment there. Michelle Parlevliet finally made it clear once more that Human Rights are not to be thought of as a pie that is to be divided up and shared among the people. On the contrary – men, for example, benefit from women’s rights just as women do.

Michela Cechini, head of the division "Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education” of the Council of Europe, spoke of a pan-European mission to promote Human Rights – one that does not only envisage the East. There is a need for developing coherent policies in various countries, which is already often done by importing models and best practices.
Tuesday morning was reserved for another panel in which four HR experts presented their country-specific programs and strategies to the experts’ circle. Jenny Luck from Amnesty International, London, reminded the participants that HRE is a hard, long-term process that needs commitment on all levels of society. Not one-sided consultation (which sometimes tends to become "benign exploitation”) but participation makes HRE sustainable.

Barbara Weber from the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute in Vienna, Austria, talked about her vision of building HR schools. These should either set aside a few hours to teach about HR, or mainstream HRE in each subject. She suggested to foster the distribution of teaching materials and training programs.
A solution to that problem came from Patricia Morgado from Novamerica, a Brazilian NGO from Rio de Janeiro. Her team organizes workshops and distributes a successful newsletter called "Human Rights in the classroom”. She criticized the fact that Brazilian teachers and students are usually able to detect discrimination in society - but not in their schools.

Finally, Rui Gomes from the European Youth Center in Budapest, Hungary, reported on his Center’s strategies for HRE. His approach is to foster thinking about Human Rights in all kinds of ways – be it through sex education or playing football. This approach resounded Felice Yeban’s comment that Human Rights do in one way or another apply to all areas of one’s life. The European Youth Center just finished a manual that contains activities, and examples as starting points for teachers and social workers.

During the discussion that followed, three major points were made. First of all, it was agreed on that people who are being taught about HR need to decide for themselves how much, how far, and how intensively they want to go into the topic. Secondly, many agreed that school curricula are already overloaded. There is the need for a strategy of incorporating HRE into the curriculum either as such, or in the context of other subject areas. Finally, the inflationary use of "Human Rights” could very well be counterproductive. Are peace education, tolerance education, or democracy education all to be subsumed under the concept of HRE? This remark brought the experts back to the original question of how to define Human Rights Education in order to achieve a solid foundation for teaching it.

Index: Podium

Reflections from a Human Rights Educator
by Felice Yeban

in addition to this article: Table: Different Approaches to Human Rights Education

Human Rights Education: Where do we stand?
by Almuth Wietholtz

Tolerance Matters
by Katrin Uhl

The big game of World Politics: The Harvard World Model United Nations
by Eva Rendle

The International Fellowship of Reconciliateion (IFOR)

Human Rights Education as a Preventive Measure Against Racism
by Nils Rosemann