Human Rights at Home Blog

Celebrating the Growing Ranks of Human Rights Cities

Kudos to the York Human Rights City Network!  On Monday, April 24,  the Lord Mayor of York, United Kingdom, announced that the city is formally joining the ranks of Human Rights Cities worldwide.  York's Human Rights City Network has long been active in coordinating local human rights dialogues and initiatives, including developing a set of local human rights indicators, but this formal announcement was a new step.  York is the first Human Rights City in the United Kingdom.

According to the York announcement, "the aim is to improve five key aspects of life in York -- equality and non-discrimination, housing, health and social care, education and a decent standard of living."  The intention is that York will use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a reference point for all city activities and policies.  There are a number of other Human Rights Cities throughout Europe, including Barcelona, Utrecht, and Graz.  Interestingly, underscoring the opportunities for further collaboration and networking among Human Rights Cities, Councillor Thomas Rajakovics of Graz, Austria, attended Monday's ceremony in York.

For more background on the global and domestic Human Rights Cities movement, see our May 26, 2016 blog.

For more specific background on York's initiative, see the chapters on York in Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (Cambridge 2016) and in Human Rights Cities: Motivations, Mechanisms and Implications (UCR 2013).

And keep on the lookout for a new book by sociologist Michele Grigolo, to be published later this year:  The Human Rights City: New York, San Francisco, Barcelona forthcoming 2017).

 

SCOTUS: Denial of Immigrants' Due Process

The latest maneuver to deny immigrants access to the courts is to call their deportation process "expedited".  SCOTUS denied a petition to hear the case of Castro v US Department of Homeland Security.  The petition was filed on behalf of  women and children from Central America seeking asylum who have been held in detention for over one year.

The case, as reported on SCOTUS Blog, raised the following issues: 

(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to judicial review of their statutory, regulatory and constitutional claims, even by habeas corpus, and are “prohibited from invoking the protections of the suspension clause” to challenge their removal; and (2) whether the 3rd Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to every other circuit to address the issue, that persons who have entered the United States may be “assimilated” to the constitutional status of noncitizens arriving at our borders, and thereby denied constitutional rights.

In refusing to hear the case,  the Court left the 3rd Circuit opinion denying the petitioners access to a federal court hearing in place. 

Human Rights Watch explained that "Asylum seekers processed under expedited removal must pass a “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer before they are allowed to file for asylum before an immigration judge. Asylum seekers who go through these interviews are often traumatized and exhausted by their experiences in their home countries, their flight to the United States, and their arrest by U.S. authorities. They may be interviewed by telephone by an officer they cannot see and are at the mercy of interpretation problems and other arbitrary factors that hinder communication, including anxiety about minor children detained with them."

This is yet another example of immigration officers who do not understand what they are observing. Little training is given to recognizing the symptoms of trauma.  A telephone interview provides even less opportunity for decision makers to recognize trauma and understand the very real fear mothers have of returning their children to a country where there is high risk of their being killed.   

Eleanor Acer of Human Rights Watch noted:  "This ruling will have grave consequences not only for these families, but also for many other asylum seekers whose lives are at risk due to the lack of effective safeguards in expedited removal processing. The expedited removal process is riddled with deficiencies that leave vulnerable refugees at risk of deportation back to persecution."

Special Rapporteur Expresses Concern about Human Rights Impact of ACA Repeal

According to a Washington Post report, in February 2017, UN Special Rapporteur Dainius Puras wrote a formal letter to the US Mission to the United Nations expressing concern over human  rights violations should the Affordable Care Act be repealed.  The letter was revealed for the first time on Tuesday by the Washington Post. Among other things, the letter explains US obligations to avoid retrogression after having expanded access to vital health care coverage.  The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which protects the right to health, was signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter, giving rise to an international law obligation not to take actions that would defeat the purpose of the covenant.  The letter further cites obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a matter of customary law.

The Rapporteur's letter directs a number of questions to the US government concerning the impact of ACA repeal, and indicates that the information will be considered by the Human Rights Council. 

On many occasions since the ACA's enactment, the Obama Administration touted the ACA in international fora as a demonstration of the US government's efforts to address human rights.  An amicus brief filed the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Florida v. HHS case collects a number of those statements.

Given the human rights at stake, it is entirely appropriate that the current Administration should defend any repeal before the international community as well as at home.  To date, though, it appears that the government has offered no response whatsoever to the Special Rapporteur's letter.  Is it possible that it has none?

States Expand the Civil Right to Counsel

While federal legal rights are being restricted for many people, states are slowly recognizing and expanding the civil right to counsel in matters involving significant rights.  John Pollock, expert on the civil right to counsel, and coordinator, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel,  reports the following:

 

"In Guardianship of K.N., SJC-12195 (Mass. 2017), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that while guardians of children might be considered de facto parents in certain circumstances, their parenting interest was not a liberty interest justifying a due process right to appointed counsel in proceedings to remove the guardian.  

 

However, the court held that the Probate and Family Court could use its “broad” equitable powers to appoint counsel for an indigent guardian where it would assist in determining the best interests of the children or parental fitness, particularly 'where the child or legal parent may be unwilling or unable to present a full picture of the case to the judge, whether because the guardian has all the necessary and relevant information about the child or the legal parent has an incentive to withhold information.'”

 

For an earlier post on the civil right to counsel, see here .

More than Just a March

The Women's March for Human Rights.  The Tax Day March.  The March for Science.  All have been tremendously successful at demonstrating the depth of concern about the direction of the country and particularly the current Administration's policies.  But many of these marches have been conceived spontaneously, not arising from a clear, multi-pronged plan for change.  So what comes after marching?

Folks at the environmental movement are thinking longer term.  April 29 is the March for Climate, Jobs and Justice, in Washington, D.C., and with sister marches around the country.

But this is more than a March.  As the environmental group 350.org puts it, "we’re calling this the People’s Climate Mobilization instead of just a March. We see April 29th as the culmination of our work to fight Trump during the first 100 days of his administration and the launch pad for a larger, nationwide movement to fight fossil fuels at the local level."

Human Rights activists should be out in force on April 29, given the clear connections between human rights and climate change.  We know in the US that climate change effects will fall hardest on poor and marginalized individuals, with significant human rights implications.

It's also clear that the environmental activists are on to something.  These gatherings are not just Marches, however much satisfaction we can take in their size and success:  each of these events is a mobilization, a building block in a broad movement that continues to gather strength.  

So don't just March.  

For the world, for our children, for ourselves, our task is to March, Mobilize, and Build a Movement.

What is an Artistic Practice of Human Rights?

This question will be explored through Artist Presentations and a Public Forum at the University of Chicago April 29 - May 1.

The website informs us:  

David Giordano, The color of a dove at night, 2016–17

What is an Artistic Practice of Human Rights? is a multi-day summit hosted by the University of Chicago and composed of a group of distinguished international artists who will propose, examine, and challenge the ways in which creative cultural resistance can broaden our collective understanding of human rights.

Through artist performances and presentations on April 29 and a public forum on May 1, the summit will delve into how artists are working to frame conversations and advance action around a range of human rights issues: from criminal justice to LGBTQ rights; youth violence to poverty; immigration rights to refugee crises; and other areas where the personal intersects the political.

More information can be obtained here.

Another Student Writing Competition

Following up on an earlier post this week, the American Bar Association's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence is sponsoring a writing competition with submissions due on May 19th.

"Law students are invited to submit articles addressing domestic and sexual violence and the law from a national or international perspective.  Submissions must further the legal needs of victims of domestic and sexual violence or their children, or advance efforts to address the incidence, causes and effects of intimate partner violence. View our past winners & view the guidelines.

Submissions are now being accepted for the 2017 year. Submissions are due by Friday, May 19, 2017 @ 5:00p.m. EST.

Submit your paper and any inquiries to [email protected]

Human Rights and National Park Week

It's National Park Week, with free admission and special events at National Parks around the country.  

During the days following President Trump's inauguration, we all had the chance to observe the Park Service calmly speaking truth to power, and correcting the historic record on the size of the inauguration crowd on the Washington Mall.  More recently, millionaire Trump made a great show of donating $78,000 to the National Park  Service while standing behind a proposed budget that would strip $2 billion from the Department of the Interior that administers the NPS.  

This weekend (or sooner!), take the opportunity to check out some of the park sites that commemorate people and events that are important to US human rights history.  Vote with your feet to show that these sites are important not only for our past, but for our future as well.  Here's a sampling:

Stonewall National Monument, New York

Val-Kill, Eleanor Roosevelt's retreat on the Hudson, Hyde Park, NY

Women's Rights National Historical Park,  Seneca Falls, NY

Frederick Douglass National Historic Site, Washington, D.C.

Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument, Birmingham, AL

Trail of Tears, National Historic Trail, AL, AR, GA, IL, KY, MO, NC, OK, TN

 

 

The Second Bill of Rights

Controversial legal historian  Samuel Moyn has just posted a new treatment of Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights.  As the abstract indicates, Moyn not only revisits the accepted account of Roosevelt's articulation of these rights, but also directly takes on his Harvard Law School colleague Cass Sunstein's well-known work on this issue.  The abstract of Moyn's new work, which will surely provoke debate, is available here.

There's Still Time!: Writing Competitions on US Human Rights-related Topics

Two upcoming writing competitions address topics under the broad human rights rubric.

The Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice writing competition is administered by Public Citizen.  The deadline for submitting a 6000-25,000 word, footnoted essay is April 28 and the topic this year is "What Does the Trump Presidency Mean  for Access to Justice?"  The competition is open to all law students and LLM students.  More information is here.  For ideas about a treatment of this topic from a human rights perspective, see the Shadow Report (2013) prepared by the Columbia Human Rights Clinic and others on access to counsel in civil cases and human rights concerns.

The Selma Moidel Smith competition, sponsored by the National Association of Women Lawyers, focuses on "as issue concerning women's rights or women's status in the law."  The deadline for submitting the essay, which can be up to 15 pages, is May 1.  More information is available here.   There are many possible US human rights-related topics, but might we suggest something on Cities for CEDAW?

 

Taxes, Corruption and Human Rights

The news of the last week included the report that the White House will no longer share its visitor logs as well as President Trump's reassertion that he will not release his tax returns, breaking with forty years of bi-partisan precedent. Meanwhile, ethics issues continue to compound daily in the executive branch, which has shown little interest in addressing apparent conflicts of interest.  

On April 15, tens of thousands of ordinary Americans across the country participated in "tax marches" to protest this lack of transparency.  According to the national march coordinators, tax returns are just the tip of the iceberg:  "President Trump needs to be straight with the American people. To whom does he owe favors? Who are his policies really intended to benefit? Who will he put first?"

The international community has long recognized the relationship between corruption and denial of human rights.  And many of the issues that impede the realization of human rights in less resource-rich countries are the same that we increasingly face in the US, including lack of transparency, a disregard of the need for integrity in the public sphere, and a consequent lack of trust in the public sector. 

Domestic activism like the tax marches and targeted lawsuits are critical components of addressing this issue.  But there may also be opportunities to raise these issues internationally.  The US has ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption, for which the UN Office on Drugs and Crime serves as a Secretariat.  The U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center has produced a useful guide to the Convention and its implementation, which highlights opportunities for civil society input.  Upcoming peer reviews will focus on, among other things, the preventative measures adopted by member states.

We are all the losers when our government values cronyism above expertise, and secrecy over open dealings.  And we should not shy away from calling this what it is: a human rights issue. 

Part II: New resource on the mental health of human rights defenders

By Prof. Lauren Carasik continues our discussion on the need for self-care in the human rights community.

 

The lack of attention to well-being has exacted an incalculable toll on frontline human rights defenders and by extension, on the organizations and movements that sustain them. To engender robust discussion and informed responses to the failure to attend to the emotional needs of human rights workers, OpenDemocracy.net has launched a new series, Resilience as resistance: Mental Health and well-being in human rights. The series will examine “a range of critical questions and issues including: research conducted on the mental health impacts of human rights work, obstacles to advancing mental health and well-being in this field, as well as innovative approaches and strategies to prevent and alleviate the harmful effects of human rights work.”  The series announcement quotes Audre Lorde, who poignantly argued that “Caring for myself is not an indulgence. It is self-preservation and that is an act of political warfare.”

Continuing our discussion on the inaugural piece, Evidence of trauma: the impact of human rights work on advocates, Meg Satterthwaite observes that although advocates often exchange harrowing tales of their work, “What is frequently left unsaid in these discussions is that trauma—direct and indirect, personal and vicarious—has a real, serious, and lasting impact on the lives of human rights advocates.” Satterthwaite describes efforts that Sarah Knuckey, Adam Brown and she have undertaken to develop “a scientific evidence base to ground efforts to respond to concerns about well-being among human rights advocates.” Their initial survey uncovered levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout among human rights activists that mirrored rates found in first responders. Yet the vast majority of those surveyed reported receiving little preparation or support for the emotional toll of their work.  Building on efforts already underway to identify and ameliorate the mental health costs of human rights work, Satterthwaite and her colleagues are focused on “systematically documenting and better understanding promising responses.” As she explains, “To develop such responses, we must first bring these discussions out of the shadows and embrace them for what they are: an acknowledgement of the complex perils—and deep joys—of human rights work”

In the second piece in the series, Douglas Mathew Mawadri, Fighting stigma: protecting the mental health of African rights advocates observes that “With many countries assenting to and domesticating an expanding regime of international human rights treaties in their respective jurisdictions, human rights advocates emerged over the last few decades to monitor these standards, and to take on governments, corporations, and some of the most powerfully entrenched systems on earth. But this type of confrontational work does not come without costs, some of which are personal and very steep” Mawadri identifies the “many issues blocking human rights workers in Africa from accessing appropriate mental health care, but three in particular stand out: stigma, social support, and lack of knowledge,” which must be addressed. He concludes by observing that “In a field where workers frequently experience trauma, burnout, and chronic stress, setting aside funds to proactively protect the mental health of workers would benefit the entire human rights movement.  We must stop treating human rights workers as though they are expendable or invincible—we are all human after all, and activists who burn out are of no help to anyone.”

Nzik Awad contributes the third piece to the series, We cannot afford to be traumatized: the reality for grassroots advocates.  As she argues, “Local human rights defenders—who are fighting to stop global companies from destroying their people's lands, or documenting horrific war crimes against their own communities, or providing aid for displaced families—are not just advocates, they are victims too. For local advocates, the passion to defend their communities' rights is far more personal and very emotional, but most of the time, their commitment to the struggles of their people exceed their limited capacities. They often make the choice to ignore their personal needs in order to ensure the survival of their communities—but this choice can come at a significant cost.”  In the absence of other support, grassroots activists are often left to rely on solidarity to sustain them.  “Yet we know that this is simply not enough,” Awad laments. “The international donors and human rights defenders support networks need to take measures that consider the complicated challenges encountered by local defenders. More importantly, NGOs, either local or international, that recruit community-based activists must recognize their unique status and develop strategies that understand their vulnerabilities. Only when organizations approach this issue proactively will they be able to ensure the safety, wellbeing and work stability of advocates who are also victims.”

For those interested in contributing to this important series, the guidelines are available here.

 

The Suit Against the Torture Psychologists Survives

Earlier, this blog reported on a lawsuit filed against the two psychologists who were paid millions by the US government to develop torture techniques designed to elicit information from terrorists.  As reported, the research and techniques developed resulted in extraordinary human torture with no new significant information obtained from those who were tortured.  More importantly, the design created by the psychologists introduced a heightened level of cruelty into US custodial culture and provided no science-based evidence that the recommended torture techniques are effective.

The lawsuit, Salim v Mitchell, was brought by the ACLU.  Recently, the suit survived a motion to dismiss that was filed on behalf of the defendants.  The case will now proceed to discovery.  This is the first law-suit based on CIA torture that has survived in the courts; but this case names CIA contractors as defendants, and the government to date has not attempted to derail the case. According to the ACLU website, the government intends to cooperate with discovery, but will keep an eye on information it decides will create risks to CIA operatives.

The Plaintiffs have one month to present a discovery schedule to the court.

 

Staying Healthy While Doing Human Rights Advocacy

While much discussion centers on the need for trauma based interviewing and advocacy, insufficient discussion addresses the trauma experienced by advocates for those whose human rights are violated.

A new blog series brings awareness to the mental health risks that human rights advocates face.   "Resilience as resistance:  Mental Health and well-being in human rights work"  introduces the topic:

"The mental health and well-being of advocates has often been neglected by human rights organizations, funders, and advocates themselves. Recently, however, activists and mental health professionals have begun giving the issue more attention, exploring what risks advocates face and how they might be mitigated. Human rights organizations increasingly want to bolster the resilience and creativity of their staff and constituents. Defenders increasingly see their own well-being as an imperative for sustainable movements."

An early post was written by Meg Satterthwaite, of NYU's Human Rights Institute.  Evidence of trauma: The impact of human rights work on advocates is an excellent discussion of the need for addressing front line trauma based upon evidence based research. In Sattherthwaite's report are findings from a study showing a high rate of PTSD among those who engage the work.  These posts are recommended for all engaged in human rights advocacy.  Often, we are deep into trauma before we recognize its impact on ourselves and those with whom we work.  Recognizing early warning signs may be the best education we can provide to our students and others beginning to engage with human rights advocacy.

Here is a wonderful list of resources for staying healthy, brought to you by Windcall Institute.

 

 

 

NY Leads in Providing Counsel for All Threatened with Deportation

A collaboration of New York legal partners will provide every immigrant in upstate New York  threatened with deportation with a lawyer.  The New York state budget allocated $4 million to the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project to ensure that all NY deportees are represented by counsel.  Studies indicate that only 3% of unrepresented immigrants are successful in avoiding deportation.  Having counsel increases the chances of avoiding deportation by 1000%.

The coalition consists of Vera Institute, Cardozo Law School's Immigration Justice Clinic, the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Make the Road New York and the Center for Popular Democracy.  Other partners in various areas of the state are the Eire County Bar Association Volunteer Lawyer's Project, Brooklyn Defenders Services, the Legal Aid Society, and the Bronx Defenders. Other cities are looking to form comparable partnerships to help immigrant families stay together.

Given New York City's provision of counsel for those being evicted, New York is becoming the national leader in the civil right to counsel movement.

 

US Disregard of Fundamental Human Rights of Children: Refusal to Feed

How distressing to learn that a school child who takes food in the cafeteria line then has the food taken away because the child has insufficient funds to pay.  That is policy in many schools across the nation. 

New Mexico recently passed a law outlawing "lunch shaming".  The shame is in the need to pass a law to stop the practice.  But there are many reports of humiliating children who cannot afford to buy food.  The New York Times reports the following incidents: 

•         One child who could not afford to pay the full cost of lunch, had "I need lunch money"         stamped on one arm.
•         Others are forced to clean the cafeteria in front of their peers.
•         Some school policies instruct workers to remove the food from the child and throw the         food into the trash.

This leaves us to wonder what sort of environment leads adults to punish and humiliate students because of their inability to meet a fundamental human need.  Perhaps those whose needs were not met as children?  Those so desperate for work that they will participate in inhumane practices?  While it is easy to be angry with those doing the shaming, the remedy can only be continued advocacy to meet the basic human needs of all.

Insight Human Rights: A New Youtube Channel Devoted to Human Rights Education

There’s a new tool available for human rights education, and it’s not in the form that you might expect. We’re all accustomed to guides, books, and websites, all of which tend to be a bit static. This is a Youtube channel.

Insight Human Rights is a new Youtube channel promoting human rights education created by lawyer Gabriel Armas-Cardona. The creator explains that he created the channel because there is so little human rights educational material accessible to lay audiences; Youtube is one of the largest websites in the world, but Armas-Cardona claims there are no Youtube channels devoted to human rights education. The channel aims to be an easy introduction to the world of human rights. Each video takes a small bite of information and presents it in a casual, easy-to-understand format. There is also a “Start Here” series where viewers can start from the very beginning with “What are Human Rights?” and slowly build their knowledge from there.

Insight Human Rights is still a young channel with only half a dozen videos, but the creator promises to put out new videos weekly. Blog contributors have spoken about the importance of human rights education, and it’s important that those tools are designed with the user in mind. For people in the field, there is nothing wrong with static, dry scholarly articles. For younger people and those considering whether to delve into the study of human rights, it’s great that there are more lively resources available.

A hat tip to Gabriel Armas-Cardona for alerting us to his new initiative!

Finally - Discrimination Due To Sexual Orientation Recognized as Civil Rights Violation

For the first time, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled, in an 8-3 decision, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender employees from workplace discrimination.  The Seventh Circuit recognized that discrimination based upon one's perceived or actual sexual orientation is a civil rights violation.  The decision of Hively v. Ivy Tech was heard en banc after a three judge panel earlier ruled against the Plaintiff, Kimberly Hively, who claimed that she experienced workplace discrimination based upon her identification as a lesbian. 

Historically, opponents argued successfully that LGBT individuals could not benefit from discrimination protections because discrimination based upon sexual orientation was not specifically mentioned in the act.   As recently as March 10, 2017, the 11th circuit wrote that it was bound by prior case law that limited protections to straight men and women. "Because Congress has not made sexual orientation a protected class, the appropriate venue for pressing the argument [that LGBT individuals are protected] raised by the Commission and the dissent is before Congress, not this court."  A dissenting opinion forecast the reasoning used in Hively.

Hively's Judge Wood declared on Tuesday that "For many years, the court of appeals of this country understood the prohibition against sex discrimination  to exclude discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. We conclude today that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination."  Judge Wood continues: "It would take considerable calisthenics to remove the 'sex' from 'sexual orientation'."  

Ms. Hively was represented by Lambda Legal who undoubtedly will next argue the case before the US Supreme Court.  Watch for more posts on this case. 

 

Civility Matters

by Jeremiah Ho

While admittedly I’m not usually a huge follower of David Brooks’ conservativism at The New York Times, I do agree with his comments about the decline of our social capitalism here in the U.S. as we have become more isolated across ethnic, diverse, and class lines.  Specifically, he observes that the source of such isolation is philosophical:  “We chose the wrong philosophers,” he said to interviewer Robert Costa.  As he elaborated further, Brooks remarked that we chose John Stuart Mill when we should have chosen Martin Buber, we chose Jeremy Bentham over Viktor Frankl, and likewise we chose Descartes over Saint Augustine.  

For Brooks, Mill impressed upon us a very individualistic worldview, when Buber offered a more communitarian perspective. Frankl’s idea that people were motivated by a search for meaningful, moral lives have been ignored in the light of Bentham’s pleasure versus pain principles.  Consequently, Brooks thinks that our society has become “too economic, too social sciency, and too utilitarian, and not enough moralistic.”  Descartes reached for the cognitive and rational when Saint Augustine focused on the emotional.  All in all, Brooks said, “And so basically we've turned into shells of ourselves and that's cut down on intimacy, and it's had these devastating social effects. But it's ideas that drive behavior, and I think we have some of the wrong ideas.”

One of these ideas, in my opinion, is about civility in public discourse. Instead of focusing on civility, many of us collectively—left and right—have been sidetracked toward the debate over political correctness as the way to confront or prevent marginalization of diverse viewpoints and visibility of particular issues.  Particularly as I see that the civility versus political correctness issue affects the development of human dignity and rights issues, I am starting the first of three posts on civility and authenticity here on this blog.              

 Besides David Brooks’ interview on Charlie Rose, the other inspiration for this first of three blog posts on civility was Keith Bybee’s book, How Civility Works, which I picked up at the exhibition hall at AALS this past January.  Bybee is the Paul E. and the Hon. Joanne F. Alper ’72 Judiciary Studies Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University.  The size of the book (80+ pages) makes it more a pamphlet.  Yet, how many times in history have we seen pamphlets wield influence over the distribution of ideas?  Through almost a cultural studies lens, Bybee’s book here examines the purported “crisis” (his quotes, not mine) of civility in American discourse by observing what civility means and the history of civility as it relates to public debates in American society. 

What ends up very clear in How Civility Works is that civility, as a form of manners and a code of public behavior, can and has possessed a plurality of historical meanings as it has co-existed alongside our rambunctious American contrarianism (Chapter 2).  But what Bybee examines further is the tension that civility has on individual liberty—exactly the individuality explored by John Stuart Mill—and its potential threat to inhibit First Amendment free speech. Although civility can inhibit free speech, Bybee argues that civility can also underwrite free speech by facilitating a means of communication that reflects good character and personal decency (Chapter 3).  Such a means of communication through civility must embody authenticity, however, or risk a hypocritical exploitation of civility that leads to immoral behavior masked under false politeness; in other words, one’s civility must be real and that “realness” or authenticity is a moral virtue (Chapter 4). Finally, in order to fulfill civil discourse that is authentic but not overwhelming, Bybee suggests that discourse must utilize a balanced version of civility that not only sustains exchange of free ideas and promotes inclusivity but also is cautious of its chilling effects on free speech and reproduction of hierarchies (Chapter 5).  Its paradoxes are also its virtues. 

In sum, Bybee’s work here is prescient for recognizing how significant and importance functional dialogue is to a liberal society—and I mean “liberal” with a post-Enlightenment capital “L” and not necessarily “liberal” in its American political meaning. In the age of extremist ideas about populism and nationalism (ideas that can lead to marginalization, discrimination, and even violence), civility is sidestepped and reinterpreted as political correctness or seen as an inauthentic means of self-victimization that ought not to be given any credence.  What does this have to do with human rights?  Just watch and listen to the rhetoric in the Keystone pipeline debate, the tone of misogyny in women’s rights issues, or the political debates regarding transgender individuals and restroom use.  The lack of civility is a first step in marginalization and denying the inherent humanity of different people and their views.  It is also an assertion of power over another.  Reading Bybee’s book is a must in this age of conflict and separatism.

 My next post in this series will further address the topic of political correctness as a strawman for getting rid of civility in public discourse.

 How Civility Works. By Keith J. ByBee. Stanford University Press. 2016. Pp. 80. $12.99.

    

 

Trump Inc.'s Law Firm

On March 28, the Wallace Global Fund fired their law firm, Morgan Lewis, with a powerful letter that excoriated the firm for facilitating the Trump Administration's many ethical breaches.  Given the Wallace Fund's core commitment to address "threats to democracy and rights," the Fund could not sit idly by while the law firm gave legal imprimatur to one after another conflict-ridden and ethically questionable moves by President Trump and his associates. 

If they were to reply, Morgan Lewis might cite ABA Model Rule 1.2(b), which assures lawyers that representation of a client "does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral view or activities."  Citing this rule, lawyers and law firms have provided needed representation to alleged criminals, Guantanamo detainees accused of terrorist activities and other unpopular causes.  Without such representation, our system of law would turn into a series of inquisitions.

But it's not unpopularity that the Wallace Fund is concerned about -- it's the complicity of the law firm in facilitating a series of serious ethical breaches by elected (and unelected) government officials.  The firm's "zealous representation" is not a defense to this charge.  In their capacities as advisors, lawyers have a responsibility to exercise "independent judgment" and to advise clients on moral, ethical and political, as well as legal issues.  If the client persists in its chosen, unethical course, the lawyer can (and in many instances must) withdraw from representation.

In addition to the applicable ethics rules, Morgan Lewis might do well to consult the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.  These international guidelines should influence the actions of Trump, Inc., of course, but they also apply directly to Morgan Lewis in its capacity as an international business.  Indeed, in 2016, the International Bar Association published a Practical Guide on Business and Human  Rights with a section devoted to law firms' responsibilities as businesses in their own right.  

A quick review of the Morgan Lewis firm website suggests that they have thus far limited their corporate social responsibility work to project-based pro bono efforts.  In this regard, they are behind other firms that have taken a leadership role in this emerging area of practice. Perhaps the Wallace Fund's letter will encourage Morgan Lewis and other law firms to recognize their own roles as human rights responsibility-holders.  After all, there's nothing like client pressure to make law firms do the right thing.