Rey Ty. (2011). Social injustice, human rights-based education and citizens' direct action to...

Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(3) 205 –221

© The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1746197911417413

esj.sagepub.com

ecsjSocial injustice, human rights-based education and citizens’ direct action to promote social transformation in the Philippines

Reynaldo TyNorthern Illinois University, USA

AbstractThis article opens with a proposed framework for human rights education (HRE), which synthesizes ideas drawn from Zinn’s people’s history, Sen’s theory of justice and Freire’s critical pedagogy. A review of the literature on HRE and human rights-based learning suggests three existent interrelated models of HRE. Drawing on human rights-based programmes designed to benefit Philippine society, this article then presents case studies in which programme participants actively struggle against social injustice. As an integral part of the learning process, co-learners envision a just and peaceful society, plan for change and engage in direct social action. New volunteers are continually mobilized to participate in community service and contribute to social action that benefits and empowers hitherto oppressed people and minorities. The article concludes with a proposal for an interactive model of human rights-based learning which aims to build on the HRE framework inspired by Zinn, Sen and Freire.

Keywordshuman rights education, Philippines, social change, social justice

Introduction

East Asia is composed of countries that have distinct histories, economies, politics and cultures. Each context is so different that one model of human rights education (HRE) does not fit all socie-ties. Hence, we need to examine what efforts are being undertaken in each society. This article examines case studies of human rights-based programmes that benefit the Philippine society. In response to the Marcos dictatorship that committed flagrant and consistent patterns of human rights violations, the Philippines already had vast networks of human rights activists engaged in HRE since the 1980s (Claude, 1991). The historical and social context (Zinn, 2007a) propelled the

Corresponding author:Reynaldo Ty, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. Email: [email protected]

417413 ESJXXX10.1177/1746197911417413TyEducation, Citizenship and Social Justice

Article

206 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(3)

emergence, continuation and increase of HRE programmes in the Philippines. Resorting to street protests, human rights-conscious social movements have ousted President Marcos in 1986 and President Estrada in 2001, with mobile phone text messages playing a key role in mass mobilization in the latter case.

This article addresses the following problems. First, HRE that is based on abstract concepts loses its expected impact. Second, many HRE programmes that are devoid of context have little utility. We need to consider the context seriously in human rights education. This article raises the following research questions. What are the HRE models that emerged from the literature review? How are human rights-based education programmes that benefit the Philippines implemented? The first objective of this article is to present the different models of human rights education, based on the existing literature published by both scholars and practitioners. The second is to present a case study involving human rights-based education programmes that promote social justice in the Philippines.

Reconstructing a framework of analysis

There are many ways in which HRE can be treated. Here, I reconstruct one integrative framework from Zinn’s (2007a, 2007b) people’s history, Sen’s (2009) theory of justice and Freire’s (2005) dialectical critical pedagogy with which to guide and analyse human rights education. This frame-work of analysis is illustrated in Figure 1. While human rights are not the key words of Zinn (2007a, 2007b), Sen (2009) and Freire (2005), their concerns can be framed in terms of human rights. In line with international human rights standards, Zinn suggests using the standpoint of the

Figure 1. Framework of analysis

Ty 207

oppressed and struggling people – not of the omnipotent government – when we study history and politics. Unlike Rawls (1999) who provided a deductive explanation of social justice, Sen suggests inductively investigating the actual conditions of social injustice as the starting point in working for social justice, concurring with the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (2002). Freire provides the epistemology of teaching and learning, which empower people, without distinction to sex, ethnicity, religion and other differences – not dissimi-lar to human rights standards (United Nations, 2002). Put together, Zinn’s historical approach from the point of view of people at the grassroots level, Sen’s inductive approach to social justice and Freire’s dialectical critical pedagogy, which links theory with practice and reflection, provide pow-erful tools for human rights education. The historically and contextually grounded teachings of Sen, Freire and Zinn concur with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 2002) which begins with social analysis and proceeds with a call for teaching and education for the promotion of respect for human rights.

For Zinn (2007a: viii), citizenship or democratic education ‘does not mean unquestioning acceptance of whatever the government does’, adding that to ‘go along with whatever the govern-ment does is not a characteristic of democracy’. He added that ‘[i]f you live in a democratic state, it means you have the right to criticize your government’s policies.’ Zinn’s (2007a: x) ‘point of view, which is critical of war, racism and economic injustice, carries over to the situation we face … today’. Zinn (2007b: 210–211) observed that ‘[t]he struggles for justice … were often ignored.’ Heeding Zinn’s (2007b: 211) call for the writing of history to be ‘respectful of people’s movements of resistance’, this article studies the role of people at the grassroots level to bring about human rights-based social change.

What is good and what is just are related concepts, the former being on the personal level and the latter on the social level. Hence, by definition, justice is social. Most of the theories of justice, including Rawls’ (1999) theory, are deductive, relying on predetermined formula of the elements of justice. Sen (2009) presents an alternative view of justice, according to which preconceived or abstract ideas of justice do not help solve real-world problems. Sen argued that attention must be paid to the realities of social injustice as the point of departure. They include exploitation, poverty, discrimination, inequality and oppression. In order to achieve social justice, we need to construct a world of cooperation, sharing, non-discrimination, equality and collaboration.

According to Freire (2005), critical teachers and students do not merely regurgitate pre-existing ideas but are engaged in knowledge production and social transformation. Freire criticized tra-ditional education as a banking method of education in which the teachers deposit knowledge to the students who withdraw and return the knowledge dumped on them for their performance evaluation. Learning is deductive, as students are given preconceived ideas and a priori solu-tions. Human rights education, in this framework, is based on abstract concepts. Freire argued that education must first consider the context or the actually existing conditions in which the students are situated, about which they pose critical questions in order to bring about social lib-eration. Apple (2008: 244) concurred, stating that ‘one must contextualize’ a concept, as the ‘meaning is in its use’. Learning is inductive, as students and teachers collaboratively engage in understanding the context to which they seek solutions and respond. HRE in this case is based on seeking to overcome actually existing social injustice and human rights violations. Apple (2008: 258) agrees with both Zinn and Freire that ‘educators must act in concert with the pro-gressive social movements their work supports’. Critical educators become organic intellectuals who are engaged in developing counter-hegemonic culture and education (Gramsci, 1971). Table 1 summarizes the above discussion.


Applying the theories of Zinn, Sen and Freire, a historically and socially determined human rights-based education programme addresses the dynamic processes in which education is embed-ded. These non-linear and dynamic processes include (1) the context, (2) social action, which includes both education and planning and (3) actual action for social and human liberation. Zinn, Sen and Freire emphasize the need to have a critical view of society, which provides an understand-ing of the context against which people at the grassroots level struggle. People at the grassroots level are engaged in social action, which has several elements, of which education is one of many. Engaged in formal, non-formal and informal education, Zinn, Sen and Freire see education as a venue where social injustice and social justice are discussed, which involves a reading of human rights and human rights violations in the material world. Unlike traditional educators, who limit their action to the academy, Zinn, Sen and Freire advocate linking education with action that pro-motes social justice, addresses human rights, and benefits the poor and the oppressed. Thus, inte-gral to education is visioning and planning for a better future for the marginalized segments of society, which include, among others, people who live below the poverty line, women, indigenous peoples, and ethnic or religious minorities. This third model of HRE is represented in Figure 2. Zinn’s people’s history, Freire’s dialectical critical pedagogy and Sen’s inductive notion of social justice provide the foundation upon which the third model of HRE discussed in the literature review and the case studies presented in the findings of this article are based.

Definition of terms

Education

Formal education refers to degree- or diploma-granting structured learning in an educational insti-tution, from primary school to the university level as well as technical and vocational training (Flowers, 2007). Non-formal education means non-degree learning that promotes learning new knowledge skills and values (Flowers, 2007), such as workshops, seminars, symposium, confer-ences and short courses. Informal education is any type of learning outside the formal or non-formal school settings, which includes learning in one’s personal life, the family, community, organizations, labour unions and social movements (Flowers, 2007).

Table 1. Critique of current approaches and the theoretical framework

Authors Elements

Zinn (2007a, 2007b) Sen (2009) Freire (2005)

Main thrust History Social justice Critical pedagogyElements in education Perspective Content Teaching and learning

strategiesThesis: critique of mainstream approaches

From the perspective of the power elite; reproduce hegemony

Abstract, deductive notions of justice

Banking method of teaching learning; reproduce hegemony

Antithesis: their contributions to critical education

From the perspective of the people’s movement; challenge hegemony

Confront actually existing social injustices

Liberating pedagogy; challenge hegemony

Synthesis: this article integrates the theories

Grassroots direct action as engaged citizenship

Social injustice Role of human rights-based education

Ty 209

Human rights

They are the ‘prerogatives and freedoms to which all humans are entitled’ (Snodderly, 2011: 27). Based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (2002 [1948]), the components of human rights are economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights.

Human rights education

HRE is explicitly focused on human rights and labelled as human rights education. The speci-ficity of HRE is that it uses human rights as a specific component in teaching and learning. Participants in the learning process use the discourse of human rights for it to be considered as HRE.

Human rights-based education

Human rights-based education programmes are embedded in and uphold all the human rights principles as the foundational values but spin off into different directions, yet related and rele-vant to human rights; they include leadership and minorities programmes that are anchored on human rights standards. Human rights-based education is a type of HRE. Human rights-based

Figure 2. Human rights education based on people’s history (Zinn, 2007a, 2007b), social justice (Sen, 2009) and critical pedagogy (Freire, 2005)


approaches rely upon the use of advocacy, education or development work that follows the principles of human rights, focusing on the rights of people and the duties of government to promote and protect the rights of everyone without distinction as to colour, and social, economic or other status (Anderson, 2009). The human rights-based approach promotes the outcome of liberty, equality and the empowerment of people to achieve their full potential. The human rights-based approach ‘is a conceptual framework and a methodological tool to ensure that human rights principles are reflected in policies and national development frameworks’ (Jensen, 2005: 2). Being inclusive, the human rights-based approach scrutinizes inequalities and dis-crimination that the poor and minorities face, which deny them opportunities (BetterAid, 2010). The rights of both the majority and minorities are respected. Rooted in legally binding instru-ments to which governments are accountable (Oxfam, 2010), the human rights-based approach is rooted in the principles of economic equity, social justice and equitable access to public resources (Boesen and Martin, 2007).

Economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights

Economic rights include the right to work, free choice of work, just compensation, unemployment protection, favourable work conditions, equal pay for equal work and joining trade unions (United Nations, 2002 [1948]: Article 23). Social rights include the right to rest and leisure, an adequate standard of living and childcare (United Nations, 2002 [1948]: Articles 24 and 25). Cultural rights include the right to education, full development of the human personality, participation in cultural life, enjoyment of the arts and the fruits of scientific advancements, as well as the right to the pro-tection of one’s interests arising from one’s work (United Nations, 2002 [1948]: Articles 26 and 27). Civil rights include:

• the right to life, liberty, security;• prohibition of slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest, detention or exile;• recognition and equality before the law;• fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;• presumption of innocence;• effective judicial remedy;• non-interference with one’s privacy, family, home and correspondence;• freedom of movement and residence within one’s country and right to leave any country and

to return to one’s country;• right to seek asylum from persecution;• right to a nationality;• right to marriage and establish a family;• property ownership;• freedom of thought, conscience and religion;• freedom of opinion and expression;• freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (United Nations, 2002 [1948]: Articles

3–20).

Political rights refer to the right to take part in one’s government directly or through freely chosen representatives; equal access to public service; as well as regular elections by universal and equal suffrage and secret vote (United Nations, 2002 [1948]: Article 21).

Ty 211

Methodology

This article uses a qualitative case study research design (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003) to describe human rights-based education programmes with which I am involved. A case study refers to ‘a choice of what is to be studied’ (Stake, 2000: 435). Both scholars’ and practitioners’ perspectives are reflected in this study.

This article focuses on case studies in human rights-based education programmes of which Filipinos are the participants. These programmes include (1) the Philippine Youth Leadership Program and (2) the Philippine Minorities Program, in which over two hundred Filipinos have participated, that Northern Illinois University’s Dr Lina Ong and Dr Susan Russell co-direct. Zinn, Sen and Freire provide the organizing themes around which the case studies are discussed here, which reveal the process through which human rights-based education is undertaken and provide lessons learned and best practices for other human rights-based education programmes to consider. As the senior training assistant of the International Training Office, I speak from experience when I discuss the case studies. I am ‘interested in co-producing … knowledge by focusing on the inter-action’ (Ferraro, 2006: 114) that I have with programme participants.

Review of literature

This article challenges the conventional wisdom that HRE is straightforward, with a core cur-riculum and a clear lesson plan. Rather, HRE takes place in formal, non-formal and informal education settings. In addition, HRE exists as subjects integrated in existing courses or sepa-rate subjects. The models of HRE that emerged from the literature are the following: civic education or citizenship education; intercultural education; globalization and global education; and education for social justice. Some see a close linkage between multicultural education and social justice actions (Pittman, 2009). In broad sweep, intercultural education and global edu-cation are lumped together, as both deal with multiple cultures and other differences, one nationally and the other globally. Some see a close link between local–global education and multicultural education (Okano, 2006). Others see a close relationship among human rights education, peace education and citizenship education (Niens and Chastenay, 2008). For some others, citizenship, peace and human rights are closely intertwined (Sinclair et al., 2008). Some authors lump together intercultural, citizenship and HRE (Kerr and Keating, 2011). Each type of HRE has its corresponding set of ideology, content, instructional strategy and different learning sites, such as informal, non-formal and formal educational settings. HRE as such focuses on human rights as specific components, while human rights-based education do not necessarily focus on human rights as such, but on issues related to human rights – includ-ing, among others, social justice, diversity, peace and citizenship. HRE and human rights-based education are represented in Figure 3.

From the literature reviewed in this article, three models of HRE emerged. The first model is top-down; the second, horizontal; and, the third, bottom-up. The three models are merely analytic models to identify different trends. The models are permeable, as each model is not mutually exclusive. Actual implementation of HRE programmes contains elements from the different mod-els. Some authors (Starkey, 2008; Stavenhagen, 2008) are able to combine citizenship education (model I) with diversity or intercultural education (model II). Unlike the section on framework of analysis where three individual authors are compared and contrasted, the literature review decon-structs different sources and reconstructs different and contrasting elements into the three models of human rights education.


First model of human rights education

The first model relies on the expertise of an educator who has all the necessary knowledge of human rights. The first model consists of HRE in the traditional formal educational setting where the teachers play a lead role in the students’ learning of new knowledge, skills and attitudes (Starkey, 1991; Yeban, 2001). In terms of instructional strategy, an expert stands in front of a for-mal classroom setting to whom the learners listen. Educators here are focused on formal HRE (Starkey, 1991; Suárez, 2007a, 2007b). Cognitive learning of abstract concepts is important, at the expense of feeling and doing things related to human rights. Learning is deductive and based on concepts. There are lesson plans or course outlines that present human rights from international instruments, such as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2002 [1948]), and national policies regarding specific issues, such as civics, citizenship, democracy, tolerance, political rights and responsibilities (Starkey, 1991; Yeban, 2001, 2002). Hence, most of the con-cepts studied are legal norms and their precursors, such as natural rights. The assumption is that there are natural rights which all humans possess. The focus of HRE rests on civil and political rights. Educational policies and practices focus on the government and the state (Bell and Stevenson, 2006; Cardenas, 2005; Koo and Ramirez, 2009; Yeban, 2001).

The image used is melting pot (Enomoto and Bair, 2002), which calls for the assimilation of all people into the mainstream of society, where everyone fits in, learns to live, and lives in one united social order. The emphasis is on national unity, patriotism, as well as peace and order. Everyone is expected to be an integral part of the national order. Peace is understood as the absence of physical violence, such as protests and revolution. When conflict breaks out, the focus is on learning and the application of conflict resolution techniques. Citizenship education plays an important role in divided societies or emerging from political violence (Dembour, 2010; Niens and Chastenay, 2008).

Second model of human rights education

The first model of HRE emphasizes citizenship, democracy and national unity in the curriculum. The second model goes one step deeper by looking at differences – not similarities – as the basis

Figure 3. Human rights education and human rights-based education compared

Ty 213

of harmony and national unity. The second model imparts the values of tolerance and acceptance of cultural pluralism (Basit, 2009; Cabezudo et al., 2010; Yeban, 2002). Often situated in non- formal educational settings, instructors act more as facilitators than as experts and lecturers, giving voice to those who were heretofore marginalized, invisible or oppressed. The poor and ethnic and religious minorities talk about their social conditions, identities and problems (Yeban, 2001). Education becomes inductive, uncovering social facts from which lessons can be learned. Learning is a process, not simply an end in itself. Learners study different cultures and religions as well as the social, national and ethnic origins of co-learners. There is more discussion of social and cultural rights in the second model of HRE than in the first one (Yeban, 2003). Non-discrimination and mutual respect are inculcated and prescribed in the learning process. While intercultural or global education (Davies, 2006) can be conducted in a formal educational setting, the format is oftentimes less formal, such as non-formal, peer-to-peer roundtable or group discussions and workshops. Aside from sharing experiences that lead to a discussion of concepts, including human rights, learners have a sense of compassion, empathy or fellow-feeling. Transformative learning brings about understanding of sensitive issues (Tibbitts, 2005). Social relationships are more important than learning about abstract concepts. Unlike the ‘melting pot’ metaphor for the first model of human rights education, the metaphor for the second model of HRE is ‘salad bowl,’ which implies inclusion, acceptance, and accommodation of differences (Enomoto and Bair, 2002). Peace is viewed not merely as the absence of physical violence, but as common humanity based on unity in diversity, attainable through mutual respect.

Third model of human rights education

The first two models seek ways for people to fit into society. The third model of HRE goes another step deeper but by questioning power and authority. The third model incorporates Zinn’s people’s history, Sen’s social justice and Freire’s critical pedagogy. Social activists working in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are at the forefront of human rights advocacy and education, most of which are conducted outside the four walls of the formal classroom settings. They study, expose and oppose social injustices whenever they occur, such as oppression, repression and exploitation of the poor, powerless and voiceless members of society and outcasts. They propose new visions, missions and actions for positive social transformation. The historically and socially determined context of social injustice is the starting point of HRE.

The first model relies heavily on an expert teaching about human rights concept, while the sec-ond model rests on learners’ feeling for the conditions of fellow learners who are different from the mainstream of society. The third model is not merely learning about international instruments or national policies or feeling for the suffering of minorities, but challenging the status quo, protesting structural domination and social injustices (Morley, 2007), and participating in social transforma-tion (Halabi, 2009), including youth engagement in community action (Kasumagic, 2008). HRE entails grassroots, local, national, regional, as well as transnational activism (Mihr and Schmitz, 2007; Yeban, 2001), including working for transitional justice for societies which emerge from armed conflict and genocide (Scarlett, 2009; Yeban, 2001). Some call this practice as learning democracy by doing, alternative practices in citizenship learning, or participatory democracy (Daly et al., 2009).

HRE entails going outside the classroom and participating in actual mobilization for social change (CHRR et al., 2005). The thrust is to work for social justice in the real world (Chan-Tiberghien, 2004). Therefore, informal education is the most common form of HRE of the third model. Human rights are understood in the wider sense to include development, health, environ-mental care and other issues for which social intervention is necessary (Meier and Fox, 2008).


Table 2. Three models of human rights education

Models Elements

Model I Model II Model III, incorporating Zinn, Sen and Freire

Sub-models of education

Civics or citizenship education; education for democratic citizenship (Osler and Starkey, 2010)

Dignity; intercultural and multicultural education; global education (Osler and Starkey, 2010; Tibbitts, 2005)

Education for social justice; popular education (Apple, 2008; Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 2010; Rawls, 1999)

Types of education Formal (Apple, 2008; Starkey, 1991; Yeban, 2001)

Non-formal (Yeban, 2001)

Informal (Freire, 2005)

Learners and teachers

Teachers or experts face students (Tibbitts, 2005; Yeban, 2001)

Peer-to-peer discussion and workshops (Yeban, 2001)

Fieldwork: Out of the classroom and into the real world (Freire, 2005; Yeban, 2001)

Schools of thought Agreement over natural rights (Dembour 2010)

Discourse (Freire, 2005)

Protest (Freire, 2005; Zinn, 2007a, 2007b)

Metaphor Melting pot (Enomoto and Bair, 2002)

Salad bowl (Enomoto and Bair, 2002; Osler and Starkey, 2010)

Justice for all (Apple, 2008; Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 1994)

Minorities and minoritized groups

Unity and assimilation (Enomoto and Bair, 2002)

Diversity; accommodation and inclusion (Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 2010)

Difference (Enomoto and Bair, 2002; Freire, 2005; Oxfam and Rights and Democracy, 2010)

Focus of learning Legal Norms and the State (Nava et al., 2005)

Prescription; non-discrimination (Freire, 2005)

Description, Context, and Action (Freire, 2005; Nava et al., 2005; Zinn 2007a, 2007b)

Importance Cognition (Nava et al., 2005)

Social Relationship (Freire, 2005)

Critical reflection and action (Freire, 2005)

Types of rights Civil and political rights (Freire, 2005; Scarlett, 2009; Yeban, 2001, 2002)

Social and cultural well-being or rights (Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 2010; Yeban, 2003)

Economic well-being or rights, environment, and sustainable development (Yeban, 2003)

Primary objectives Thinking and learning to live together (Freire, 2005)

Feelings and attitude in favour of cultural pluralism or multiculturalism (Freire, 2005)

Doing (Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 2010; Sen, 2009)

Priorities National unity, security, peace and order (Scarlett, 2009; Sinclair et al., 2008)

Inclusion and global governance (Koo and Ramirez, 2009; Okano, 2006)

Grassroots empowerment (Oxfam and Rights and Democracy, 2010)

Ty 215

Eclectic models

Some authors masterfully combine different elements, such as democracy (model I), dignity (model II) and justice (model III). For example, Osler and Starkey (1994: 352) suggested that the ‘study of human rights … should lead to an understanding of, and sympathy for, the concepts of justice, equality, peace, dignity, rights and democracy’. Osler and Starkey (1994: 355) added that the ‘relationship between human rights education and democratic values such as justice, equality and cooperation’ need to be ‘made explicit by the participants’ themselves, ‘as were some of the skills and attitudes needed to guarantee human rights and democracy’. Osler and Starkey (2010) pointed out that academic institutions, acting as catalysts, can lend a hand and assist students to live and work together democratically (model I) and to help them promote justice (model III) and peace (model III) in multicultural societies (model II). Models I and II contain some elements of Zinn, Sen and Freire. Of the three models, only model III consistently incorporates Zinn’s people’s his-tory, Sen’s social justice and Freire’s critical pedagogy. See Table 2 for the various elements of the three models, which is developed from a textual analysis of the different sources.

In summary, the three elegant models are parsimonious models that cannot fully represent the complex and messy reality. In fact, some authors’ earlier articles and books are placed in one model, while their later publications are placed in another model (Osler, 2008; Osler and Starkey, 2001, 2006, 2010; Starkey, 1991, 2008). Osler and Starkey’s (2010) book covers all the major themes important in the first, second and third models of HRE. The presence of the three models is recognition of the way by which the field of HRE has changed over the decades. The neatness of the analysis avoids the complexity of the mixed models and concepts that in practice underpin actually existing HRE.

Philippine case studies

There are many human rights-based education programmes that the International Training Office administers, of which some projects relate to the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Cyprus. For this arti-cle, the discussion revolves around two sets of programmes. The first is the Philippine Youth

Models Elements

Model I Model II Model III, incorporating Zinn, Sen and Freire

View of peace Absence of conflict (Scarlett, 2009; Sinclair et al., 2008)

Unity in diversity (Freire, 2005; Okano, 2006; Osler and Starkey, 2010)

If you want peace, work for justice. (Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 2010, Sen, 2009)

How to attain peace

Conflict resolution skills and techniques (Scarlett, 2009)

Mutual respect (Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 2010)

Engagement in social actions that remove real-world injustices, such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination (Freire, 2005; Osler and Starkey, 1994)

Primary value Citizenship (Osler and Starkey, 2010)

Common humanity (Scarlett, 2009)

Fairness (Rawls, 1999)

Table 2. (Continued)


Leadership Program (PYLP). The second is the Philippine Minorities Program (PMP). All these programmes are non-degree, non-formal education programmes.

Flowing from the theoretical framework and the literature review above, this article presents case studies involving Filipinos who attend human rights-based education programmes. The per-spectives of Zinn, Sen and Freire are the organizing frameworks around which the case studies are discussed. How is the framework of Zinn, Sen and Freire used in the two case studies? The big picture of the Philippine programmes encompasses the following. First, Zinn, Sen and Freire treat the historical and social context, as the starting point. The Philippine programmes start with an analysis of the Philippine situation. Second, Zinn, Sen and Freire saw the need of educational pro-grammes to focus on inductively based idea of social justice. The Philippine programmes examine the conditions of social injustice obtaining in the country. Third, Zinn, Sen and Freire saw the need for planning and visioning for a better future for people at the grassroots level, which the Philippine programmes incorporate. Fourth, Zinn, Sen and Freire recognized the necessity for social mobili-zation and direct action, which the Philippine programmes do. Fifth, the end in view of Zinn, Sen and Freire was social transformation, as with the Philippine programmes. The discussion in this section follows that framework (see Figure 2 above).

Historical context and curriculum of the human rights-based education

Following Zinn’s call to listen to people’s history, the PYLP and the PMP start with a critical reflection of the historical and social contexts of the Philippines in general and of Mindanao in particular. Participants engage in critical pedagogy (Freire, 2005) both on-campus (non-formal) and off-campus (informal) that upholds social justice (Sen, 2009). In both PYLP and PMP, I explic-itly present the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the human rights-based approach, during which participants acquire or review knowledge of human rights. The participants use human rights as the framework of their action plans. In collaboration with the participants, I pro-duced slideshows of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the human rights-based approaches which serve as a teaching and learning tool (Ty, 2011). As human rights are compo-nents of these educational programmes, they can be called HRE. While human rights are important but not the main or only focus in these programmes, they are properly considered as human rights-based educational programmes.

The goal of the PYLP is to develop young leaders engaging in community activism. The cur-riculum includes volunteer community engagement, leadership development, diversity and con-flict management and action plan development (Ty, 2010b). Participants are prepared for lifelong leadership and community service. The participants develop action strategies and become catalysts for social transformation in their communities.

The goal of the PMP is to develop minority leaders committed to strengthening civil society (Ty, 2010a). The majority of Filipinos are Roman Catholic. Minorities include Muslims and indigenous peoples, both of whom experience inequality, discrimination and missed opportunities. Through Freirian critical pedagogy, the participants learn about human rights, justice, tolerance and conflict resolution; advocacy skills and designing community service action plans.

Visioning and planning for a just and peaceful society as integral part of the curriculum

Guided by (1) a critical understanding of the context and (2) learning new knowledge, skills and values from the non-formal and informal learning sessions, the participants to both programmes

Ty 217

engage in (3) visioning exercises as well as learn to develop plans. All these are integral to the theo-ries of Zinn, Sen and Freire. The participants prepare their project proposals based on the actual needs of the communities in which the projects will be implemented. The culmination of the aca-demic aspect of the programme is the presentation of their plans to panellists who provide con-structive comments. While the case studies involve human rights-based education programmes at Northern Illinois University, which are non-formal, the outputs involve formal, non-formal and informal human rights-based education. Table 3 illustrates the implementation of direct action community projects within the programme.

Mobilization and direct action in the post-non-formal education stage

Espousing the perspectives of Zinn, Sen and Freire that education must work for concrete social change, the programme does not end when the participants return to their communities in the Philippines. They implement the community projects that they have proposed. Their projects revolve around relief work for victims of armed conflict and natural disasters, advocacy work (such as human rights education, national unity in diversity, good governance, interfaith dialogue, peace education and conflict resolution), protection of the environment (such as planting of man-groves and trees), charity work (such as doling out school supplies and toothbrushes) and liveli-hood projects (such as beads and necklace making and the production of peanut-based products).

Table 3. Implementation of direct action community projects in the post-human rights-based education programme stage

Response to historical and social context (Zinn)

Critical pedgagogy (Freire) Action plans as outputs of the human rights-based education programme (Sen)

1. Relief Informal education Food, clothing, shelter, medicine, toothbrush, toothpaste and soap for internally displaced persons and survivors of internal armed conflict and natural disasters

Alternative to formal education

Teaching basic literacy to internally displaced school children who are in temporary camps due to internal armed conflict

2. Advocacy Formal education Integrating and teaching interfaith dialogue, diversity and human rights in the regular classroom setting

Non-formal education Symposium, workshop and lectures on interfaith dialogue, diversity and human rights

3. Livelihood Non-formal education Seminar on making peanut-based food for sale, such as peanut butter

Informal education Raising of goats, fish and pigs for poor indigenous communities; vegetable gardening

4. Environment Formal education Integrating the right to the environment and sustainable development in the curriculum

Non-formal education Seminars on the environment and sustainable development

Informal education Planting of trees and mangrove; composting; recycling


Their social action in the form of community projects cover the whole range of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights – the whole gamut of human rights. To make the projects sustainable, community participation is encouraged. Existing or new organizations adopt the project as their regular or annual activity where new volunteers, recruits and organizational members implement the projects year after year.

Social transformation as the outcome of the non-formal, human rights-based education programme

All the efforts in the learning process – from (1) understanding the context, (2) human rights-based education programme, (3) visioning exercises and planning as well as (4) mobilization and social action in the form of implementing community projects – lead to social change. Most programme participants continue to do volunteer community service as part of their lifelong vocation. Some participants were former rebels. Others work closely with government. Still others refuse to work with government. They all find their own ways to bring about social change. Below is the emerging interactive model of the two case studies involving the Philippines, which reflects the perspectives of Zinn’s people’s history, Sen’s social justice and Freire’s critical pedagogy, which matches the third model of HRE. Figure 4 illustrates the emerging interactive model of HRE.

Figure 4. Emerging interactive model of human rights-based education

Ty 219

Conclusion

The recommended courses of action are addressed to those engaged in designing and teaching HRE in formal, non-formal and informal educational settings. Teaching and learning about human rights as a specific component in the curriculum is necessary but not sufficient. For human rights to be meaningful to the learners, the ontology in teaching human rights must be inductively grounded in historical and social context rather than be based on deductive and abstract concepts. Although this article drew inspiration from Zinn, Sen and Freire, an inductive approach to human rights is nothing new. In fact, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 2002 [1948]) itself is an inductively based document, as it inductively starts, in the preamble, with the context of disrespect for human rights leading to barbarous acts.

Directed to those who design HRE curriculum and teach human rights, the recommendations here are directly and completely in line with the approaches of Zinn, Sen and Freire as well as the third model of HRE. Guided first and foremost by historically and socially informed ontology and epistemology, this article shows that an inductive HRE is contextualized and makes more sense to the learners than deductive HRE that imparts abstract notions of human rights. Second, knowledge, skills and values can either (1) include human rights standards as such as specific components in the case of HRE or (2) deal with issues dear to human rights, such as social justice, peace, diversity or grassroots empowerment, in the case of human rights-based education.

Third, engaged learning does not end in the formal HRE setting. Rather, HRE continues well after an educational programme ends. Hence, learning in a contextually relevant HRE programme must include visioning and planning for a just and peaceful society, based on actual social realities, problems and needs, as one programme output. Fourth, to make human rights a reality, both stu-dents and instructors who are co-learners must be engaged in the real world to correct injustices that the poor, oppressed, the minorities suffer. This involves implementing the action plans, which are the outputs that participants produced towards the end of the human rights-based education programme. After engaging in critical reflection and co-producing knowledge during the human rights education, learners and teachers engage in service learning by going back to society and become social actors. They get their hands dirtied by doing something concrete to change the world, one person and one activity at a time. Each concrete step that each social actor accomplishes is one step towards making this world a better place.

In conclusion, we need to turn the ontology of social justice and human rights upside down. For a more fruitful learning experience, we need to move away from a strictly deductive, idealist understanding of the conception of human rights and social justice to a historically and socially contextualized understanding of human rights violations and social injustices, after which we need to engage in social action that promotes social justice and human rights.

References

Anderson T (2009) HIV AIDS in Cuba: a rights-based approach. Health and Human Rights 11(1): 93–104.Apple MW (2008) Can schooling contribute to a more just society? Education, Citizenship & Social Justice

3(3): 239–261.Basit TN (2009) White British, dual heritage, British Muslim: young Britons’ conceptualization of identity

and citizenship. British Educational Research Journal 35(5): 723–743.Bell L and Stevenson H (2006) Education Policy, Process, Themes and Impact. Routledge: London.BetterAid (2010) Development Effectiveness in Development Cooperation: A Rights-based Perspective.

Brussels: BetterAid.Boesen JK and Martin T (2007) Applying a Rights-based Approach: An Inspirational Guide for Civil Society.

Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Human Rights.


Cabezudo A, Christidis C, Carvalho da Silva M, Semetriadou-Saltet D, Halbartschlager and Mihai GP (2010) Global Education Guidelines: A Handbook for Educators to Understand and Implement Global Education. Lisbon: North-South Centre of the Council of Europe.

Cardenas S (2005) Constructing rights? Human rights education and the state. International Political Science Review 26(4): 263–379.

Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), Public Affairs Committee, National Constitutional Assembly, CIVNET, ASSERCO, CBRC, NIZA (2005) Train-the-Trainer Manual: Civic Education and Community Mobilization. Amsterdam: NIZA.

Chan-Tiberghien J (2004) Towards a ‘global educational justice’ research paradigm: Cognitive justice, decol-onizing methodologies and critical pedagogy. Globalisation, Societies and Education 2(2): 191–213.

Claude RP (1991) Human rights education: the case of the Philippines. Human Rights Quarterly 13(4): 453–524.Daly K, Schugurensky D and Lopes K (eds) (2009) Learning Democracy: Alternative Practices in Citizenship

Education and Participatory Democracy. Toronto: Transformative Learning Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Davies L (2006) Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review 58(1): 5–25.Dembour MB (2010) What are human rights? Four schools of thought. Human Rights Quarterly 32(1): 1–20.Enomoto EK and Bair MA (2002) The role of the school in the assimilation of immigrant children. In:

Merriam SB (ed) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 181–197.

Ferraro G (2006) Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective, 6th edn. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

Flowers, N. (Ed.). (2007). Compasito: Manual on human rights education for children. Budapest: Directorate of Youth and Sports of the Council of Europe.

Freire P (2005) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gramsci A (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.Halabi SF (2009) Participation and the right to health: lessons from Indonesia. Health and Human Rights

11(1): 49–59.Jensen, L. (2005). Human rights-based programming: What it is. New York: United Nations Population Fund.Kasumagic L (2008) Engaging youth in community development: post-war healing and recovery in Bosnia

and Herzegovina. International Review of Education 54(3/4): 375–392.Kerr D and Keating A (2011) Intercultural, citizenship and human rights education: the challenges of imple-

mentation for policy, practice and research. Educational Research 53(2): 119–122.Koo JW and Ramirez FO (2009) National incorporation of global human rights: worldwide expansion of

national human rights institutions, 1966–2004. Social Forces 87(3): 1321–1343.Meier BM and Fox AM (2008) Development as health: employing the collective right to development to

achieve the goals of the individual right to health. Human Rights Quarterly 30(2): 259–355.Mihr A and Schmitz HP (2007) Human rights education (HRE) and transnational activism. Human Rights

Quarterly 29(4): 973–993.Morley C (2007) Teaching critical practice: resisting structural domination through critical reflection. Social

Work Education: The International Journal 27(4): 407–421.Nava LH, Mancao MCT, Hermosisima MVC and Yeban FI (2005) Human Rights Awareness of Secondary

School Students in the Philippines: A Sample Survey. Osaka: Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Centre.Niens U and Chastenay MH (2008) Educating for peace? Citizenship education in Quebec and Northern

Ireland. Comparative Education Review 52(4): 519–40.Okano KH (2006) The global-local interface in multicultural education policies in Japan. Comparative

Education 42(2): 473–491.Osler A (2008) Human rights education: the foundation of education for democratic citizenship in our global

age. In: Arthur J, Davies I and Hahn C (eds) The Sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy. London: SAGE, 455–467.

Osler A and Starkey H (1994) Fundamental issues in teacher education for human rights: a European perspec-tive. Journal of Moral Education 23(3): 349–359.

Ty 221

Osler A and Starkey H (2001) Citizenship education and national identities in France and England: inclusive or exclusive? Oxford Review of Education 27(2): 287–305.

Osler A. and and Starkey H (2006) Education for democratic citizenship: a review of research, policy and practice 1995–2005. Research Papers in Education 21(4): 433–466.

Osler A and Starkey H (2010) Teachers and Human Rights Education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.Oxfam America, and Rights & Democracy (2010) Community-based Human Rights Impact Assessments:

Practical Lessons. Report from an International Meeting, Canada, 2010. Quebec: Oxfam America and Rights and Democracy.

Pittman CT (2009) Multicultural education and social justice actions. Intercultural Education 20(2): 173–186.Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Scarlett MH (2009) Imagining a world beyond genocide: teaching about transitional justice. The Social

Studies 100(4): 169–176.Sen A (2009) The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Sinclair M, Davies L, Obura O and Tibbitts F (2008) Learning to Live Together: Design, Monitoring and

Evaluation of Education for Life Skills, Citizenship, Peace and Human Rights. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

Snodderly D (ed.) (2011) Peace Terms: Glossary of Terms for Conflict Management and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Academy for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding.

Stake RE (1995) The Art of Case Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research.

(2nd ed.) (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Starkey H (1991) The Council of Europe recommendation on the teaching and learning of human rights in

schools. In: Starkey H (ed.) The Challenge of Human Rights Education. London: Cassell, 20–38.Starkey H (2008) Diversity and citizenship in the curriculum. London Review of Education 6(1): 5–10.Stavenhagen R (2008) Building intercultural citizenship through education: a human rights approach.

European Journal of Education 43(2): 161–179.Suárez D (2007a) Education, professionals and the construction of human rights education. Comparative

Education Review 51(1): 48–70.Suárez D (2007b) Human rights and curricular policy in Latin America and the Caribbean. Comparative

Education and Review 51(3): 329–352.Tibbitts F (2005) Transformative learning and human rights education. Intercultural Education 16(2):

107–113.Ty R (ed.) (2010a) The Past is Always Ahead of Us: Empowering Indigenous and Minority Leaders in the

Southern Philippines. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University International Training Office.Ty R (ed.) (2010b) Philippine Youth Leadership Program: Building a New Generation of Citizens as Catalysts

for Social Change. Training Manual. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University International Training Office.Ty R (2011) Universal Declaration of Human Rights: complete text version, video file. Available at: http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=thGCqRQ3–08 (accessed 8 March 2011).United Nations (2002 [1948]) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In: Human Rights: A Compilation

of International Instruments: Universal Instruments. Volume 1 (First Part) Universal Instruments. New York: United Nations.

Yeban FI (2001) The human rights education in Sri Lanka. Human Rights Education in Asian Schools 4: 97–105.

Yeban FI (2002) Reclaiming and reaffirming HRE: reflections from a human rights educator. International Tolerance Network 1: 1–2.

Yeban FI (2003) Building a culture of human rights: challenge to human rights education in the 21st century. In: ARRC (ed.) Human Rights Education Pack. Bangkok: Asian Regional Resource Centre for Human Rights, 28–31.

Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Zinn H (2007a) A Young People’s History of the United States, Vol. I. New York: Seven Stories Press.Zinn H (2007b) A Young People’s History of the United States, Vol. II. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Rey Ty. (2011). Social injustice, human rights-based education and citizens' direct action to...

Documents

Transcript of Rey Ty. (2011). Social injustice, human rights-based education and citizens' direct action to...