Universities and human rights in cities

Abstract

Human rights globalization is, counterintuitively, largely a process of localization. We focus on the role of universities in their localities as a way of gaining insight into the complex ways in which they shape human rights outcomes both on and beyond campus. This topic has, to our knowledge, received no explicit scrutiny in the human rights literature, where the presumption of academic workers producing and disseminating knowledge in pursuit of justice—and often on behalf of the downtrodden—prevails. We have no wish to deny or dismiss the importance of that work; our purpose is to paint a broader and more detailed picture that comprises not only this work but also the role of universities as institutions in the political economy of human rights of their communities and the institutional and political dynamics that shape and constrain human rights scholarship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 It is sad how easily university administrators fall into these “free speech traps” set for them by well-financed hate groups. The inability or unwillingness to make meaningful differentiations between academic discourse and hate speech or between the free expression rights of students and the purported right of any speaker to express any thought on campus is indicative of a rigid, legalistic understanding of speech and harm that works to preserve the speech of the privileged and multiply the harms experienced by minoritized populations.

2 For more on the commercialization of research and the risks it poses, see https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/archives/?p=35367.

3 Such backlash against the use of knowledge for progressive social change is not new: During the Cold War, political elites actively repressed progressive scholars and intentionally severed connections between the academy and social movements. Federal funding was also used to align research, curricula, and programs with US foreign policy interests, including by subsidizing and promoting military contractors and suppressing left thinking and activism. There was also a positive strategy for winning the larger ideological fight, as outlined in the infamous “Powell memorandum” of 1971. The memo sketched a conservative defense against the “broad attack” from “disquieting voices” in labor and academia (see https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=powellmemo).

4 See, for example, Dolgon et al. (2017), Eatman et al. (2018), McIntyre (2007), Nyden et al. (1997), Soska and Johnson Butterfield (2004), and Stoecker et al. (2009).

5 Examples include York in the United Kingdom and, in the United States, Carrboro, North Carolina, Boston, and our respective home cities of Pittsburgh and Birmingham.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Goodhart

Michael Goodhart is professor of political science and gender, sexuality, and women’s studies at the University of Pittsburgh.

Tina Kempin Reuter

Tina Kempin Reuter is director of the Institute for Human Rights and Director of UAB Social Science and Justice Research. She is associate professor of political science and public administration and of anthropology.

Jackie Smith

Jackie Smith is professor of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh.