Teacher Education and Human Rights

Audrey Osler, Hugh Starkey

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138504226
• eBook ISBN: 9781351381420
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Teaching has been described as a hazardous profession and teacher educators are faced with a challenging task in preparing teachers for the future. Human rights are high on the international agenda but also have direct implications for teachers and students in the classroom. Originally published in 1996, this book brings together teacher education and human rights to examine how we might best educate children and young people for citizenship. Drawing on case studies from the UK, Europe and internationally, the authors provide practical suggestions for ways in which teachers can increase young people's awareness of the importance of securing their rights and those of others in the community. Looking particularly at how teachers might challenge injustice, racism and xenophobia, they examine human rights as a basis for educational policies and discuss how international human rights instruments can be incorporated into the teacher education curriculum.

The book will benefit teacher trainers, teachers and education policy makers concerned with race, gender and special needs: undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers and educational researchers.

Part 1. Human rights, international agreements and shared values

1 Human rights as universal standards

Introduction

In January 1996 the Chief Executive of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority for England organised a conference to launch a debate on basic moral values at which he proposed the setting up of a forum to 'produce a statement of values, a code of morals - the sort of thing we think schools should be doing on behalf of society'. This proposal appears to acknowledge a lack of consensus about values education in England. The 1988 Education Act which initiated a national curriculum stresses the centrality of Christianity as a national characteristic. Yet European societies, including England, are manifestly both secular and multifaith. Christianity is but one ethical tradition amongst many. In this context it is perhaps not surprising that many question the primacy of a particular faith in schools and that this should lead to uncertainty about what constitutes public and agreed values. Which aspects of private beliefs should legitimately be respected in schools and which should be confined to the home or place of worship? National governments may make decisions and policies, including those on education, for ideological reasons. We recommend that a multifaith and multiethnic society needs a perspective on values that transcends party, national and ethnic traditions. We look to international institutions for guidance.

As teachers, we are constantly making judgements about pupils and their actions or inaction. In this process we are confronted with situations requiring us to make professional and sometimes moral choices. Children will assert their identity and their individuality in ways which may challenge our plans or the school's procedures. We have to decide whether to ignore certain behaviour or whether to intervene. Many of our decisions involve value judgements. How can we establish an appropriate response to insults to other pupils, imprecations against the school, boisterous or violent play or behaviour, absences, lateness, refusal to work or to work with others, or unusual dress? How can we respond to disruptive non-conformity?

A commonly accepted basis for moral arid ethical decision-making required in our professional life provides psychological security, enabling us to operate confidently. We may seek assurance that decisions we make can be justified in the eyes of our colleagues and the community. It is, however, inappropriate in a multifaith or secular society to justify public decisions by reference to a particular religious tradition. We cannot rely on a consensus around a particular interpretation of traditional morality. The inhabitants of European states come from and are influenced by many nations and traditions. It is necessary to look to a supra-national level to find a commonly acceptable basis for agreed social values. At such a level, be it regional (Europe) or global (the United Nations and its agencies), we can find a multiplicity of carefully constructed agreed statements of value and principle. These statements have a unifying theme. They are all based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Since the concepts associated with human rights are founded on a concern for individual human dignity, in other words treating others as you would wish to be treated, the same principles can be applied to any human context or community. The school is one such community.

The origins of international commitments to human rights

The concept of human rights as currently formulated is a comparatively recent invention, dating from the 1940s. A concern for human rights was already part of the Enlightenment Project (Gray, 1995), with its origins in the eighteenth century. Several formulations associated with the declarations made at American independence (1776) and the French Revolution (1789) have passed directly into the codification of the United Nations Charter (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Whilst human rights have a distinguished ancestry, their twentieth-century formulation is new in that its scope is no longer national (America or France) but universal. The President of the United Nations General Assembly of December 1948 which proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dr H. E. Evatt of Australia, observed that this was 'the first occasion on which the organised world community had recognised the existence of human rights and fundamental freedoms transcending the laws of sovereign states' (Laqueur and Rubin, 1979).

Human rights are the key part of an international project to promote and maintain world peace. Representatives of fifty-one countries meeting in San Francisco on 26 June 1945, just before the end of the Second World War, signed the United Nations Charter. The Charter begins with a manifesto:

We the Peoples of the United Nations determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom ...

Although the signatory states proclaim their faith in fundamental human rights, these rights were not defined in the Charter itself. It took another three years for a team, including notably René Cassin from France and Eleanor Roosevelt from the USA, to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its meeting in Paris on 10 December 1948. The Declaration, the founder text of modern human rights, defines in its thirty articles those rights and fundamental freedoms that are the inherent birthright of all human beings.

The first paragraph of the preamble is an encapsulation of the sentiments expressed in the UN Charter above, namely that:

Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Human rights principles are those based on a recognition of the equal entitlement of all human beings to respect for their essential dignity and, further, an equal entitlement to all those rights recognised by the international community as human rights.

There are many ways of conceptualising and ordering the articles of the Universal Declaration, but that proposed by RenéCassin himself (see Figure 1.1) has the merit of a mnemonic. Cassin sees the Declaration as resembling a classical Greek portico (Féron, 1987: 86-7), such as that used in the logo of UNESCO. The foundations are the preamble and the first article:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Figure 1.1 Cassin's model of the Universal Declaration

The four pillars of the Universal Declaration are:

• personal rights (life, freedom, security, justice) in articles 2 to 11;
• rights regulating relationship between people (freedom of movement, rights to found a family, asylum, nationality, property) in articles 12 to 17;
• public freedoms and political rights (thought, religion, conscience, opinion, assembly, participation, democracy) in articles 18 to 21;
• economic, social and cultural rights (social security, work, equal wages, trade unions, rest and leisure, adequate standard of living, education, cultural life) in articles 22 to 27.

To cap the edifice (articles 28-30) there is the pediment of an international order essential for the realisation of rights and the understanding that rights imply duties to the community and freedoms do not extend to those actions which jeopardise the rights of others. The full text of the Universal Declaration is included as Appendix 1.

European commitment to human rights

The principles of the Universal Declaration are also enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which, since it came into force in 1953, has protected all those living in the democratic countries of Europe. The member states of the Council of Europe, ten of them at its founding in May 1949, now around forty, commit themselves to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. This commitment is more than just a form of words. It carries obligations. Individuals who feel that their rights have not been respected can appeal to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Many governments of European states have been obliged to change their laws or their procedures and in some cases offer compensation as a result of decisions of the Court.

The shared principles of European citizenship are enumerated in many official documents signed by heads of state and government or their ministers. The principles have not changed over recent years. In the preamble to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms member states of the Council of Europe agree to secure the agreed rights and freedoms:

Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its Members and that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realisation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend...

Unity, it is believed, can be achieved if states respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. This voluntary but formal commitment is expressed by becoming a full member of the Council of Europe.

The crucial role of educators in promoting this world of justice and peace is also underlined. If the various communities within Europe are to have a 'common understanding' of human rights, this implies that it should be an essential and fundamental component of education. Unfortunately, it would appear that relatively few people, even well-informed people such as teachers, are familiar with the basic texts on which our future is supposed to be founded. The Council of Europe has, with the co-operation of its member states, promoted a very significant programme of education for human rights, which is discussed in Chapter 3.

The other major European organisation, the European Union, formerly the European (Economic) Community, is based on the same principles as the Council of Europe. The Copenhagen Summit of December 1973 produced a document on European identity. The members are:

determined to defend the principles of representative democracy, of the rule of law, of social justice - which is the ultimate goal of economic progress - and of respect for human rights. All of these are fundamental elements of the European identity.

(Duparc, 1993: 30)

The Treaty of European Union (Maastricht Treaty) of 1992, which attempted to define the future direction and shape of the European Union, similarly begins with a preamble which spells out the basic aims of European unity. The heads of state confirm 'their commitment to the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law'.

The universality of commitments to human rights

Europe is part of the world community, whose main institution is the United Nations. The fundamental principles of Europe are not just European, but universal. Human rights are, in this sense, internationally validated moral standards, universally accepted in principle in international discourse and in international law (Palley, 1991: 13), even if they are not always enacted or observed by governments and their agents. The universal status of human rights is also accepted by all major religious groups, even though there are many examples of behaviour apparently justified by religion which clearly contravene the spirit and often the letter of human rights obligations. In fact as Ray (1994: 18) points out, the lists of rights and obligations that were referred to by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in drawing up the Universal Declaration came from religions, secular philosophical movements (Confucianism, Communism, secular humanism), and legal traditions, At the time of independence, India, a multiethnic and multifaith nation, adopted in 1949 a constitution which, as Ghosh and Attieh (1987: 40) point out, 'was based on the belief that democracy cannot be established unless certain rights are assured to all citizens'. Its preamble reflects the spirit of article 1 of the Universal Declaration that 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.' This challenges the conservatism of the traditional Hindu society based on caste, in order to create a new Indian nation in which Hindu religious values still find expression, but where there is room for other faiths and social change is possible. Duties and rights are embedded in Hindu thought, and interpretations of religious understanding can evolve when confronted with economic, political and social changes.

It is the case that some governments and political movements have argued against human rights. Any far-right movement based on a racist or xenophobic ideology clearly does not accept the fundamental equality of dignity and rights of all human beings. The commitment to human rights and democracy by nations is, however, a commitment to prevent such movements and parties coming to power.

Other arguments put forward by governments apparently critical of human rights are often, as Halliday (1995) points out, in fact endorsements of the universality of human rights. The criticism is not of human rights, but of dual standards. States may use human rights rhetoric but tacitly condone abuses when it suits their foreign policy to do so. The speech made at the UN in 1993 by Iran's foreign minister, Ali Akbar Velayati, and quoted by Halliday, illustrates both the attack on the hypocrisy of human rights being used for political advantage and the declared commitment of a government of the Islamic world to universal human rights:

Based on the supreme teachings of Islam, the Islamic Republic of Iran considers respect for human rights and the lofty character of mankind in all material and spiritual dimensions as a fundamental duty for all governments. According to this belief, the Islamic Republic of Iran, without paying attention to any propaganda hue and cry, will continue its efforts to strengthen the principles which guarantee support for the rights of all citizens ... As the majority of the countries of the world stressed in the course of the [Vienna 1993] international conference on human rights, the only way to lend real support to human rights and promote such principles throughout the world is to end the practices of having double standards and exploiting human rights issues for political objectives.

(Halliday, 1995: 145-6.)

It is clear from this speech that the rhetoric of human rights is an essential element of international discourse. The acknowledgement of the importance of human rights standards, even if governments do not fully implement them, makes international negotiations and agreements possible. The reference to the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in the Iranian statement is significant. On 25 June 1993 the delegates of 171 states, representing 99 per cent of the world's population, adopted unanimously the Vienna Declaration, which in its first article reaffirms the universality of human rights:

The World Conference on Human Rig...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• Part 1. Human rights, international agreements and shared values
• Part 2. Human rights education and political realities
• Part 3. Human rights and the curriculum
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Index