Critical Race Theory and Human Right Education: Where Domestic and International Concerns Meet

Throughout 2021 and 2022, legislators across the country banned Critical Race Theory from being taught in elementary, high schools, and public universities. In Oklahoma, House Bill 1775 banned conversations on race and gender that deal with implicit bias or the systemic effects of racism and sexism in America. Non-discrimination and examination of prejudice are essential to CRT to increase students’ awareness of their own rights, especially those that have been historically withheld, and spur discussion on respecting others’ rights. These principles are evident in the Human Rights Education and Training Treaty (HRET), and can be used as a mechanism to pressure the United States to uphold its agreement to the promotion of human rights through CRT. [1]

Legal action has begun on laws like Oklahoma's House Bill 1775 to combat these bans and protect CRT. The federal lawsuit Black Emergency Response Team (BERT) v. O’Connor claims House Bill 1775 is unconstitutional for “intentionally target[ing] and deni[ng] access to ideas aimed at advancing the educational and civic equality of historically marginalized students.” [2] To comply with this law, teachers are having to restrict language, unable to use the words “diversity” or “white privilege” which are integral to education and students' understanding of the systems they live in. [3] These restrictions limit natural and necessary conversations in the classroom ultimately resulting in narrower education for all students. BERT v. O’Connor, amongst other cases, seeks to protect a vein of education from laws that broadly infringe on free speech and affect students’ learning experience. The case has received national attention as organizations like the ACLU also have become plaintiffs. While these laws function domestically, international law can also be a factor. 

In 2011 The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution called the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (HRET). The HRET uplifts and defines human rights education while claiming states are responsible for implementing human rights education. As outlined in the HRET, human rights education should be based on “the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] and relevant treaties and instruments.” [3] The UDHR’s definitions of rights and protections contain many of the same issues being discussed in CRT. The UDHR states that people should be protected from discrimination by race or gender, and the HRET further states that human rights education should be used so that “everyone is aware of their own rights and responsibilities in respect of the rights of others.” [4] [5] Non-discrimination and examination of prejudice are essential to CRT to increase students’ awareness of their own rights, especially those that have been historically withheld, and spur discussion on respecting others’ rights. Connections between the UDHR and the HRET allow CRT to be considered a branch of human rights education and therefore protected by the HRET. The United States as a member of the United Nations, has adopted the HRET and can be encouraged to uphold its agreement to the promotion of human rights education through CRT. 

The HRET provides an opportunity for the United States to be held accountable on an international level through “naming and shaming.” As a legal action in international law, however, this is extremely difficult to pursue against the United States. Nevertheless, NGOs and the international community at large have used the process of “naming and shaming” or utilizing media and public opinion to draw attention to a governmental body’s wrongdoing and the international legislation that is affected. As Keneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, states, “the core of our methodology is our ability to investigate, expose, and shame.” [6] NGOs like Human Rights Watch can make the connection between the HRET and CRT to shame laws banning CRT and bring global awareness to cases like BERT v O’Connor. The United States can be criticized internationally for banning CRT at the state level and nationally having no legislation protecting human rights education. 

More language and guidance on the HRET by international bodies can pressure the United States to secure human rights education, including CRT, in national legislation. During the fifth anniversary panel of the adoption of the HRET, states were encouraged to pass domestic legislation supporting human rights education and “develop national policies which integrated systemic and comprehensive programmes on human rights education in all educational sectors, and for the systematic monitoring and review of national policies and practices in that domain.” [7] These anniversary panels and conventions focus on touting the growth and positive implementation efforts of the state’s human rights education systems. Reminding and highlighting the HRET and governmental work to uphold it every anniversary is insufficient. A United Nations treaty monitoring body on the HRET could ensure that human rights education is being protected by focusing more on practical means of implementation for states and applauding systems that currently are working. In “Human Rights Education: Educating About, Through and For Human Rights,” Alison E.C. Struthers claims that a “reiteration of the existing obligations upon states, together with detailed guidance on the measures necessary for effective implementation” would encourage states to implement human rights education and protect it as guidelines and policies would be more explicit. [8]

Critical Race Theory has become a necessary part of the American education system, yet legislators across the country insist on banning discussion of race and discrimination from classrooms. Since the United States has adopted the HRET, the international community can hold the country accountable for the implementation and protection of its principles. However, effectively doing so will require more specific language and steps from the United Nations to secure the protection of CRT in the United States. 

Juliana Luna is a sophomore at Columbia majoring in Creative Writing and Human Rights. She is passionate about social and economic rights as well as prosecutorial reform.

Edited By: Genevieve Cabadas 

Sources:

  1. Ledesma, María C., and Dolores Calderón. “Critical Race Theory in Education: A Review of Past Literature and a Look to the Future.” Qualitative Inquiry 21, no. 3 (March 1, 2015): 206–22. Visited March 13, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414557825.

  2. Black Emergency Response Team v. O’Connor, No. 5:21-cv-01022-G, 3, 6 (W.D. Okla. 2021)

  3. Ibid.

  4. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

  5. Ibid.

  6. The United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Education and Training. 2011.

  7. Roth, Kenneth. “Defending Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Practical Issues Faced by an International Human Rights Organization.” Human Rights Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2004): 63–73.Visited March 13, 2022 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20069716. 

  8. “Council Holds High-Level Panel on the Fifth Anniversary of the Adoption of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training.” OHCHR, Visited March 13, 2022 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20494.

  9.  Struthers, Alison E.C. “Human Rights Education: Educating about, through and for Human Rights.” The International Journal of Human Rights 19, no. 1 (January 2, 2015): 53–73. Visited March 13, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2014.986652.

Juliana Luna