This research project examined the opinion of three key audiences on human rights in the U.S. as applied to social justice issues: the American public, social justice advocates not currently using the human rights approach, and journalists who regularly cover social issues. The research components included:
• Six focus groups in Atlanta, Chicago and Minneapolis with members of the “persuadable” public. The goal of the focus groups was to understand how Americans think and talk about human rights principles and their application to domestic social justice issues. These groups informed the development of the subsequent nationwide telephone poll of 1,500 respondents from the general public.
• Six moderated discussion groups in Atlanta, Chicago, and Minneapolis with local social justice adocates. The purpose of these groups was to understand how to communicate more effectively with this audience about the human rights framework, and the adoption of that approach in their work. The insights from these groups informed an online survey of over 600 social justice advocates.
• A focus group of journalists in Chicago held to determine barriers and opportunities facing reporters interested in human rights when covering issues through that lens.
Each of these research pieces found promising trends amongst the target audiences. Most people are open to a human rights framing of domestic issues, particularly around issues related to equality, discrimination, fair and humane treatment in the criminal justice system, and education. There was also some agreement that health care, a clean environment and fair pay were human rights. With certain qualifications, the public accepts the idea of economic and social human rights as well as civil and political rights. While unsure of the government’s ability or responsibility to provide such rights, the public does feel that government has a role in protecting them.
Social justice advocates and the journalists interviewed were also receptive to the notion of human rights, though skeptical of its power with public audiences and policymakers. Advocates personally embraced the concept of human rights and some even described their work in human rights terms, but they were not wholly convinced that it was the most effective frame for their issues. Similarly, the journalists with whom we spoke were open to the concept, but could not see many opportunities to infuse human rights concepts into their stories outside of those about specific violations. The reports on this research provide several recommendations for addressing these barriers.
There was a very low level of awareness of international treaties among all audiences. When raised, the idea that international treaties could or would be enforced domestically drew skepticism among most. Some were pleasantly surprised to hear that such mechanisms exist, while others expressed concern that such laws had not produced many benefits over the years. Still others worried about the effectiveness of international bodies, or the wisdom of applying a single standard to all nations.
Overall, this research puts advocates in a promising position to increase public understanding of and support for human rights in the U.S. We hope that the findings and recommendations contained in these reports provide the foundation for a practical and effective communications strategy.
