Building the National Will
to Expand Opportunity in America

Talking Human Rights
in the United States
A Communications Toolkit
Tips, tools, and techniques for building public support
to uphold human rights at home.

About
The Opportunity Agenda
The Opportunity Agenda was founded in 2004 with the mission of building the national will to
expand opportunity in America. Focused on moving hearts, minds, and policy over time, the organization works with social justice groups, leaders, and movements to advance solutions that expand
opportunity for everyone. Through active partnerships, The Opportunity Agenda synthesizes and
translates research on barriers to opportunity and corresponding solutions, uses communications
and media to understand and influence public opinion, and identifies and advocates for policies that
improve people’s lives. To learn more about The Opportunity Agenda, go to our website at
www.opportunityagenda.org.

Acknowledgments
This guide was made possible in part by grants from the Oak Foundation and the U.S. Human Rights
Fund at Public Interest Projects (PIP). General operating grants from the Ford Foundation and the
Starry Night Fund at Tides Foundation, and project grants from The Overbrook Foundation and The
Libra Foundation, also helped support this effort. Earlier support from Tides Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The Nation, and the Mertz Gilmore Foundation helped lay the
foundation for the public opinion research on which the guide was based. The statements made and
views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.
We would also like to thank the following individuals who served on the Advisory Committee for
the research upon which this publication is based and generally guided our thinking about human
rights messaging.
catherine albisa, National Economic and
Social Rights Initiative

jonathan hutson, Physicians for Human Rights

isabel alegria, California Immigrant Policy Center

jody kent, The National Campaign for the
Fair Sentencing of Youth

sonal ambegaokar, National Immigration
Law Center

risa kaufman, Human Rights Institute
at Columbia Law

katrina anderson, Center for Reproductive Rights

kami kruckenberg, Poverty & Race Research
Action Council

judy appelbaum, American Constitution Society
ajamu baraka, US Human Rights Network
caroline bettinger-lopez, Columbia Law School
carroll bogert, Human Rights Watch
heidi boisvert, Breakthrough
matisse bustos hawkes, Witness
lisa crooms, Howard University
jamil dakwar, aclu
ejim dike, Human Rights Project, Urban Justice Center
jason disterhoft, Amnesty International USA

mitch marr, North Dakota Human Rights Coalition
jen nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights
alison parker, Human Rights Watch
catherine powell, Fordham Law School
Human Rights Project
loretta ross, SisterSong Women of Color
Reproductive Health Collective
anja rudiger, National Economic and Social Rights
Institute Initiative
leonard rubenstein, Physicians for Human Rights

frank donaghue, Physicians for Human Rights

doug schenkleberg, Heartland Alliance For
Human Needs & Human Rights

mallika dutt, Breakthrough

bill schulz, Center for American Progress

david fathi, Human Rights Watch,
United States Program

reshma shamasunder, California Immigrant
Policy Center

gwen fitzgerald, Amnesty International USA

michael shellenberger, The Breakthrough Institute

Fernando Garcia, Border Network for Human Rights

larry siems, Pen American Center

lucas guttentag, aclu Immigrants’ Rights Project

cynthia soohoo, Center for Reproductive Rights

dalia hashad, Amnesty International USA

philip tegeler, Poverty & Race Research
Action Council

ana hernandez, Causes in Common at the
lgbt Community Center in New York

makani themba-nixon, The Praxis Project

steve hitov, National Health Law Program

joann kamuf ward, Human Rights Institute

margaret huang, Rights Working Group

vincent warren, Center for Constitutional Rights

aziz huq, Brennan Center for Justice at nyu
School of Law

phil wider, National Economic and Social Rights
Institute Initiative

Thanks also to Kate Stewart of Belden Russonello & Stewart, who oversaw the poll and focus groups,
and to Loren Siegel for her work in building the foundation for the ongoing human rights work that
supports this publication.

1

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION

.................................................................................

5

Human Rights and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.....................................................................................

7

..........................................................................................

7

How to Use This Toolkit
About the Research

SECTION I - Strategy, Framing, and Talking Points
General Messaging and Framing Guidance

...........................................................

9

Target Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Human Rights Messaging

...................................................................................

...............................................

16

....................................................................

16

Social Justice Issues and Human Rights at a Glance
International Human Rights Treaties
Health Care

14

.....................................................................................................

Life Without the Opportunity for Parole for Young People

......................................

20
25

Racial Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

SECTION II - Media Tools, Guidance, and Samples
Working With Reporters

....................................................................................

47

Choosing Spokespeople

....................................................................................

48

.................................................................................................

50

Press Releases

Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Op-Eds

...........................................................................................................

Online Strategies

..............................................................................................

News Hook Calendar

.........................................................................................

54
57
60

SECTION III - Public Opinion on Human Rights in the
United States
2007 Focus Groups and Survey

..........................................................................

Social Justice Advocates Interviews and Survey

....................................................

64
66

Policymaker Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
...................................................................

66

..............................................................................................

67

......................................................................................................

72

2009 Message Testing Focus Groups

Select Resources
Conclusion

3

4

Introduction
Human rights are among society’s most powerful ideals.
The notion that all people have rights, simply by virtue
of their humanity, has spawned new nations, inspired
countless freedom movements, and transformed the
relationship between people and their governments in
places big and small around the globe.
Human rights represent, at once, a set of values; a system of laws and enforcement mechanisms; and
a dynamic, growing movement. They embody the values of dignity, fairness, equality, and opportunity necessary to a just society and an empowered populace. Beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they represent the world’s explicit agreement as to those protections that are
crucial to our humanity. They are concretized through domestic laws and international treaties, monitoring, and enforcement bodies. And as an organizing principle and policy approach, they inspire
social justice movements to achieve transformative change.
After years of dormancy, human rights are coming home to the United States today, in each of those
respects. Americans strongly support the ideals of human rights across a range of issues and policies,
from health care to due process to freedom from discrimination. Federal and state policymakers and
courts are increasingly recognizing the relevance of international human rights principles to domestic law and policy. And a rising tide of U.S. social justice advocates and organizations are using
human rights as both rallying cry and policy goal. Over the last decade, the human rights approach
has contributed to impressive victories, from the nationwide abolition of the death penalty for young
people, to equitable public health protections in Connecticut, to anti-poverty efforts in Illinois, to
women’s rights guarantees in California.
At the same time, however, there is public misinformation, resistance, and even backlash in some
quarters against certain human rights issues. Despite the resonance of human rights values among the
public, Americans are unfamiliar with the international human rights system, skeptical about international bodies, and hesitant about the implications of enforcing some rights aggressively. And different groups of Americans have different concerns, different perceptions, and different levels of
openness to a human rights message.
At this crucial moment, it’s important that we get it right when it comes to human rights communications. Leading with the most resonant values, language, facts, and arguments, and targeting the
appropriate audiences, will be crucial to motivating our base of human rights supporters while convincing “persuadables”—people who could be reliably with us but are not yet in our camp. This
toolkit is intended to provide concrete advice and examples for achieving that goal.

5

At The Opportunity Agenda, our mission is building the national will to
expand opportunity in America. We believe that respect for the full range of
human rights—economic, social, cultural, civil, and political—is crucial to
fulfilling that mission.
In other resources and publications, we have offered recommendations for
communicating other, related social justice themes, including an inclusive
Opportunity Frame, subthemes such as the value of Community, and specific
narratives on issues such as immigration or racial equity. Although these
resources can stand alone, they also fit together with this toolkit to help
advocates and spokespeople promote a comprehensive social justice vision.
For us, human rights are a crucial part of opportunity for all. For other
readers, human rights may represent the defining principle from which other
themes and goals flow. Still others may seek the best way to persuade the
public on a particular rights issue, whether or not human rights play a visible
role in their communications. In order to support as broad an array of
advocates and spokespeople as possible, this toolkit provides recommendations
for advancing support for human rights principles and for promoting specific
policies and outcomes that are crucial to upholding our human rights.

6

HOW TO USE THIS TOOLKIT
This toolkit offers ideas, recommendations, and best practices for promoting human rights in the
United States through media and other communications. The suggestions included here are rooted
in a large body of opinion and media research; in established communications techniques; and in the
shared experience of hundreds of advocates, policymakers, and communications strategists. We hope
readers will use this collective knowledge to build greater understanding and support for human
rights at home and abroad, creating a more just society and world for us all.
The opinion and communications research that underlies our recommendations explored a variety
of topics:
➥

Are target audiences open to understanding the issue as a human rights issue?

➥

What’s the most effective human rights argument for persuading audiences on the issue?

➥

If human rights messaging is not effective (or is counterproductive), what other messaging
approaches might better persuade audiences to embrace a policy solution that would, in
practice, uphold the right in question?

The toolkit includes advice along each of those parallel tracks. In many cases, readers will find that leading with alternate themes, such as the opportunity for rehabilitation or workable solutions, can open
the door to more detailed discussions that introduce human rights explicitly to skeptical audiences.
This toolkit is also designed for readers to use in modules. For those looking for quick tips or language, the At a Glance section within each issue area provides short and easy-to-find advice and
sample language. For those wishing more context, we have also included longer explanations; summaries of the research; framing and messaging overviews; and longer examples of messaging.
Although this version of the toolkit is printed, we consider the development of strategies around
human rights messaging to be an ongoing process. To that end, we will continue to produce tools and
resources, most of which will be available at our website. In this ongoing work, we hope to continue
to learn from you, our readers, and ask you to share your experience and advice with us. You can
submit your experiences communicating about human rights at our website (www.opportunityagenda.org), or by e-mailing us at partners@opportunityagenda.org.

ABOUT THE RESEARCH
The public opinion research on which much of the guidance presented here was based comprised a
series of focus groups with persuadable audiences, interviews with and a survey of social justice
advocates, interviews with state policymakers, and a national poll. It was conducted over a three-year
period from 2007 to 2009, culminating with focus groups that tested messages around the issues
covered in this toolkit: health care, racial profiling, the sentencing of young people to life without
parole, due process, and immigration. See Section 3 for a full description of this work. Unless otherwise cited, the research referenced here can be found at www.opportunityagenda.org or, as in the
case of the 2009 Message Testing Focus Groups, by emailing partners@opportunityagenda.org.

7

Strategy,
Framing,
and Talking
Points
GENERAL MESSAGING AND FRAMING GUIDANCE
We often talk about “framing” or “reframing” the debate on social issues. But what exactly does that
mean? And how can it promote support for human rights? Framing is the idea that communications—whether in a news story, a speech, an op-ed, or a water cooler conversation—carry implicit
values, stories, and world views that shape the terms of debate and determine whether problems and
solutions are part of the conversation. Framing taps into stories that we carry in our heads, with
heroes, villains, morals, causes, and solutions.
Framing or reframing a debate takes time, repetition, and “message discipline.” It does not mean that
we should all mindlessly mouth the exact same words or avoid answering tough questions honestly.
But it does mean that all of our communications should carry common values and themes.
Human rights are just such a theme. By consistently calling up the values represented by a human
rights approach, we can start to reframe a number of debates in favor of upholding human rights for
all. Identifying those values and developing messages and stories that showcase them are key strategies to shaping the national dialogue.
As we work to start a conversation about human rights, it’s important to understand the barriers and
opportunities identified through public opinion research and on-the-ground experience. It’s unlikely
that we can immediately or dramatically change the frame of a particular argument in favor of a
human rights frame if our audiences currently do not connect the issue to human rights. That’s why
it’s encouraging that audiences are receptive to talking about due process, health care, racial profiling, and some other issues in specific human rights terms. It’s also why we need to open conversations about other issues, such as immigration and sentencing youth to life without parole, with care
and build more slowly toward an understanding of how they intersect with human rights.
Promoting values, concerns, and solutions in the public discourse is a long-term effort. Successful narratives about civil rights and environmentalism, for example, took decades to establish. We now
know enough about how key audiences receive human rights messages to start strategically shaping
a human rights narrative.
9

GENERAL MESSAGING AND FRAMING GUIDANCE

Messaging Questions
Some useful questions to consider when building a message include the following:

What values are central to the issue and motivate audiences?
Communications research shows that audiences are more receptive to unfamiliar arguments when
they are framed within the context of shared values. If a litany of facts and arguments are presented
that somehow conflict, or appear to conflict, with an audiences’ core values, the audience will often
disregard the facts. It is therefore essential to tie arguments to universal values that matter to members of persuadable audiences. It is also important to talk about how upholding those values is
important to all of us and to creating the society we want.

Who does the narrative suggest is responsible for implementing solutions?
Many stories focus on the plight of individuals. It’s an easy and often compelling way to make a
point about a certain issues. But research shows that an exclusive focus on such stories inadvertently
suggests to audiences that people should solve the bulk of their problems themselves, without outside intervention or support. Instead of an inclusive health care system, for instance, an individual
approach suggests we should have individual health savings accounts or simply diet and exercise
more. By contrast, placing human stories in a broader context—patients who challenged their
insurance company, a doctor who sees her patients having to forego treatment—connects our audience to systemic problems and solutions.

Does the story inadvertently invoke unhelpful cultural narratives?
For instance, in talking about health care, we sometimes use a consumer frame. But this frame is
actually unhelpful if the solution we want to promote is universal care. Consumerism implies that
we are economic players competing for limited resources. Instead, we want to promote the idea that
health care is a human right and public good, and the system is stronger when we’re all in it.

Building a Message
To start building a drumbeat of shared communications, it’s important to “stay on message.” We recommend using the following model to help build easy-to-use and understandable messages: emphasize the values at stake, state the problem, explain the solution, and call for action.
VALUE at Stake
Why should your audience care?

PROBLEM
Documentation and statistics
bolster arguments.

SOLUTION
Avoid issue fatigue—offer a
positive solution.

ACTION
What can your audience
concretely do? The more
specific, the better.

10

Health care is a public good as essential as food or water, and no one
should have to go without this basic human right. It enables us to live
healthy, productive lives and to contribute to our society.
But, right now, our country is failing to protect that right. When people
lose their jobs, their health care goes too, adding to the 46 million
Americans who have no health insurance at all. Millions more have
insurance that’s too expensive and doesn’t cover their basic health
needs. People shouldn’t have to declare bankruptcy or lose their savings or even their homes because of crushing hospital and doctor bills.
That hurts all of us.
We can protect the human right to health care through reforming our
insurance system to give everyone quality care and by investing in
community clinics and other quality, affordable services in communities
around the country.
Urge your elected officials to protect the human right to health care for
all Americans by supporting these important reforms.

TARGET AUDIENCES
In the benchmark human rights survey that The Opportunity Agenda commissioned in 2007, public opinion researchers Belden Russonello & Stewart used a technique called cluster analysis to
describe different U.S. audiences based on their attitudes toward three main themes: views on human
rights, the application of certain human rights in the United States, and attitudes toward the United
Nations.1 The message testing focus groups then consisted of members of the three clusters of American viewpoints that are supportive or persuadable on human rights. Together, they represent 69%
of the U.S. population.
This segmentation is important because it helps advocates to think strategically about their audiences and not to become preoccupied with the remaining 31% of the population who are much more
difficult to persuade. (For a description of these groups, see the cluster analysis on the next page.)
Engaging these first three groups will start moving the national dialogue, as and policy, down the road
we need. It may eventually be the case that the unconvinced 31% move in a more favorable direction as the result of a changed culture. But right now resources are best spent on targeting the
following groups.
̈

̈

̈

The first group, Human Rights Champions, comprises 29% of the population
and is the most likely to believe that every person has basic rights that are
common to all human beings. They are also most likely to say the United
States needs to move “aggressively” to put human rights at the top of its
agenda. Although this group is the most amenable to hearing about social
issues within a human rights framework, they are by no means immediately
familiar with this framework or even aware of its existence. They are likely
the most open to learning about it, though, and thus are a good starting point
for many communications strategies. Members of this cluster are disproportionately professional, educated women who live in cities. Politically, this
group is progressive and Democratic. They are best reached through media
outlets such as NPR, national newspapers and blogs, or through the communications of allied social justice organizations in which they are likely to
be involved.
The next group is also a target for outreach, but members of this cluster are
more hesitant to move forward on a domestic human rights agenda. Members of the Young Cautious Human Rights Supporters are 19% of the population. They are most likely to believe we need to move “cautiously” when
it comes to human rights in the United States. This cluster is the youngest
group, tends to be lower income, and has a relatively high proportion of moderate single women who listen to public radio and perform volunteer work.
This group also includes a high number of NPR listeners.
A third cluster, U.S. Human Rights Supporters, includes a relatively high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics. This cluster makes up 21% of
the population. Although this group accepts a range of social justice issues as
human rights concerns, the other distinguishing characteristic of this group
is that its members are among the least likely to believe the United States
should sign international human rights treaties and the most likely to believe
that, because of different cultures and values, it is impossible to have rights
that apply to everyone in the world. This group is best reached through traditional media and through faith-based organizations.

To uphold human rights in the
United States it is often necessary
to expand government assistance
programs to help people obtain
things like housing, food, health
care, and jobs.
PERCENTAGE THAT
STRONGLY AGREE
General population:

37%

Human Rights Champions:

48%

Young Cautious:

56%

U.S. HR Supporters:

51%

Here you can see how these audiences
differ from the general public in their
views of government programs and
human rights.

1. See Section III for a fuller explanation of the research.

11

TARGET AUDIENCES

It should also be noted that these audiences represent the general public, most of whom have very
limited knowledge about the human rights framework. A 1997 poll by Peter D. Hart Research, for
example, found that only 8% of Americans could name the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The human rights base—those who have attended trainings, who show up for rallies, or are active
in the movement in other concrete ways—is a relatively small group, even within the first cluster of
Human Rights Champions. Messaging that works with this base likely differs from some of the recommendations here. This toolkit is focused on creating new audiences for human rights issues and
is premised on a strategy that identifies the most likely future allies for our cause.

Other Audience Breakdowns
While the entire U.S. population is included in the cluster analysis, Americans also differ somewhat
by demographic group in their reasons for supporting human rights communicators.

12

Percentage
African
saying reasons Americans
are extremely
important

Asian
Americans

Incomes
Less Than
$25,000

Latinos

Progressives

Women

Treat people
fairly and
with dignity

83

58

73

70

77

75

Community:
better for
society

72

35

61

56

69

64

Heritage:
America
founded on
human rights

67

41

67

66

61

59

Follows will
of God

73

23

62

64

46

60

Opportunity
to succeed

70

33

57

55

50

50

Audience “Cluster Analysis”

Description

Human
Rights
Champions
(29%)

Young
Cautious
HR Supporters
(19%)

U.S. Human
Rights
Supporters
(21%)

Anti-U.N.ites
(17%)

Anti-Gov’t
Bedrock
Conservatives
(14%)

More women

More women

More women

More men

More men

Younger

Youngest

Younger

Oldest

Older

High income

Most single

Most parents

High married

Most married

Highest ed

Low inc

Most retired

Highest inc

High prof

Most moderate

Highest Hisp and
African Amer

High cons

High educ

High Rep

High prof

Most rural

Most cons

Most liberal

High Dem

Lowest ed and inc
High cons

Most Dem

High Dem

More city

More South

More city

Most suburb
High Midwest

More south

Engagement

Among most
likely national
newspapers
readers, blogs,
NPR
Donate and vol
for charitable
organ

Applications of
Human Rights
and Role
of Gov’t

Among most
likely to agree
w/applications of
HR.
100% agree hr
of illegal imm
violated when
denied med care
86% agree to
expand gov’t
programs to
uphold hr

Potential
Barriers

95% disagree
that the U.S.
should NOT sign
international
treaties.

High NPR
listeners

High rel
attenders

Highest rel
attenders

Volunteers

High news
consumers

Most political

Least likely
attend rel.
services

Overall
Framework

Most talk radio
listeners

High voters and
most pol and
charitable donors
High newspaper
readers

Narrow view
of hr.

Narrow view
of hr.

96% disagree
hr of illegal imm
violated when
denied med care

90% disagree
hr of illegal imm
violated when
denied med care

59% disagree
expand gov’t
programs to
uphold hr

100% disagree
expand gov’t
programs to
uphold hr

97% agree that
the U.S. should
NOT sign international treaties.

100% agree that
the U.S. should
NOT sign international treaties.

Most to say b/c
of diff cultures
and values it is
imp to have
rights that apply
to everyone in
the world. (64%)

63% disagree
that the U.S.
should NOT sign
international
treaties.

Most negative
opinions on U.N.

Agree with HR
but not all the
applications.

Agree w/HR;
highest on ecorelated rights

100% disagree
hr of illegal imm
violated when
denied med care

95% agree hr
of illegal imm
violated when
denied med care

100% agree
expand gov’t
programs to
uphold hr

84% agree to
expand gov’t
programs to
uphold hr

67% disagree
that the U.S.
should NOT sign
international
treaties.
But: 57% agree
b/c of diff cultures and values
it is imp to have
rights that apply
to everyone in
the world.

Urgency

Least likely
voters

Most Rep

92% agree
should strive to
uphold hr in US

86% agree
should strive to
uphold hr in US

89% agree
should strive to
uphold hr in US

70% agree
should strive to
uphold hr in US

60% agree
should strive to
uphold hr in US

36%
“aggressively”

28% “aggressively”; 57%
“cautiously”

34%
“aggressively”

41% “slowly”
or “evolve”

36% “slowly”
or “evolve”

Imp to treat
people fairly and
w/dignity

Imp to treat
people fairly and
w/dignity

Imp to treat
people fairly and
w/dignity

Am founded on
Jefferson’s belief
that we all have
rights that no
gov’t should take
away

Imp to treat
people fairly
and w/dignity

Better for everyone to live in a
society that pays
attention to hr,
rather than one
that ignore
human rights

Am founded on
Jefferson’s belief
that we all have
rights that no
gov’t should take
away
Respecting hr
follows the will of
God

Imp to treat
people fairly and
w/dignity

13

HUMAN RIGHTS MESSAGING

HUMAN RIGHTS MESSAGING
CORE MESSAGE: It is better for everyone to live in a
society that pays attention to human rights, rather than
one that ignores human rights.
Our research shows that the American public is ready to hear more about upholding and promoting
human rights at home. Americans hold a clear and positive concept of human rights and place
social justice issues in a human rights framework—including economic and social rights. However,
this understanding of and support for human rights is not rooted in treaties and does not translate
to urgency in moving forward with an explicit human rights agenda. To build a case for doing so,
we recommend that advocates both connect human rights to familiar and core values and make the
case for a human rights approach with concrete examples of how using such a framework can have
a positive and concrete effect on people’s lives.

Themes to Guide Message Development
̈

Lead with values. Fairness, dignity and opportunity, and pride in America’s heritage and founding principles, were ranked highly by all audiences as a reason why human rights are important.
Connect human rights issues to these values, drawing particularly on American experiences and
history and our continuing struggle to make our founding ideals a reality.

̈

Begin with supportive audiences and work outward. See the “Identifying Target Audiences” section of this toolkit for more ideas on this strategy.

̈

Emphasize consensus issues to introduce the idea of human rights generally. Equal opportunity,
freedom from torture, education, and health care are each widely accepted as human rights.

̈

Start conversations with the goal—upholding human rights—rather than the process. Audiences
have almost no knowledge of treaties and mechanisms and care less about their existence than
they do about the conditions such vehicles are meant to address.

̈

Then move to specific examples. This will illustrate the effectiveness of thinking about social justice issues though a human rights lens. Audiences do not immediately see the implication of
viewing an issue as a human right and are likely to view human rights merely as inspiring ideals
without concrete examples of their impact.

Specific Challenges and Opportunities
̈

Concern about the role of government. Many audiences are concerned about the ability and
propriety of government providing for certain rights, such as health care and education, and
view it as a protector. It’s important to point out cases in which the government has successfully
upheld social and economic rights, such as in the instances of Social Security and Medicare.

̈

Concern about “personal responsibility.” People are often preoccupied by the idea that too much
government assistance removes personal ambition and responsibility. To balance this concern,
focus on instances in which we all need to work together for solutions and where policy is a
better answer than telling people to figure things out on their own. For the audiences receptive
to human rights arguments, health care is a good place to start.

14

Human Rights Messaging in Action
The following letter was submitted to the Seattle Post.

March 11, 2009
To the Editor:
Re: “Advocates worry human rights get lost during economic crisis” (Judy Vue, March 8):
Rather than taking the view that human rights and economic issues need to compete for our national
attention, advocates should be reminding President Obama, the Administration and Congress that
they are integral.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of freedom from want as a fundamental right in his famous “Four
Freedoms” speech, connecting human rights with the economic challenges facing the nation. In establishing the New Deal, FDR recognized that the protection of essential freedoms was part and parcel
to rebuilding America. President Obama should embrace such fundamental rights while advancing
a new “New Deal” along with implementation of the economic recovery package and passage of
the budget.
One way to do that is to support the creation of an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights. This
Working Group, established by President Bill Clinton and essentially dismantled by President George
W. Bush, would serve as a coordinating body among federal agencies and departments for the
promotion and respect of human rights and the implementation of human rights obligations in U.S.
domestic policy.
The moment is ripe to build human rights into the foundation of our government and restore America’s standing in the world.
Ajamu Baraka
Executive Director of the United States Human Rights Network and Co-Coordinator,
Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda

15

HUMAN RIGHTS MESSAGING

SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES AND
HUMAN RIGHTS AT A GLANCE
Belden Russonello & Stewart developed the following chart to provide guidance around how to
promote different social justice issues effectively through a human rights lens.
ISSUES

HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK

TREATIES

It is better for everyone to live in a society that pays attention to
human rights, rather than one that ignores human rights. Human rights
treaties provide tools to help ensure the basic rights of all people are
upheld.

HEALTH CARE

Health care, as a public good, is as essential as food and water and no
one should have to go without this basic human right.

JUVENILE LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE

The opportunity for rehabilitation is a human right that should be
upheld for young people who commit crimes.

RACIAL PROFILING

Racial profiling violates the human rights to fair treatment and
freedom from discrimination and violates American values of fairness
and justice.

DUE PROCESS

American values of justice and fairness stand strong only when we
uphold the human right to due process.

IMMIGRANT ISSUES
GENERAL

We need workable solutions to immigration that uphold our nation’s
values and allow people who contribute and participate to live in the
country legally with their human rights protected.

(framework should be used
cautiously with selected issues)

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS TREATIES
CORE MESSAGE: It is better for everyone to live in a
society that pays attention to human rights, rather than
one that ignores human rights. Human rights treaties
provide tools to help ensure that the basic rights of all
people are upheld.
Although our research found that key audiences are not immediately moved by the introduction of
human rights treaties to an argument, it did uncover some openings to educating these audiences in
a way that could spur further discussion.
Audiences—including policymakers and social justice advocates—are largely unaware of the existence
or intention of such treaties. In addition, they tend to view international treaties as ineffective and
unenforceable. Even those who are willing to view social justice issues through a human rights lens
16

worry that treaties are not an effective way to uphold human rights here because the United States
has not always lived up to international agreements in the past.
For instance, although audiences in focus groups reacted positively to a short description of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they also exhibited some disillusionment with the document because the Declaration has not in their view resulted in more concrete changes within the United
States. However, most recognized the value in having a document that lays out human rights
because it provides goals to which we can aspire and because it is a starting place for countries to
come together and agree on how people around the world should be treated.

“We’re still fighting for all of this; equal pay for equal work? My goodness, the women have been fighting for that for how long? It’s sad
to say, but this is almost a joke—that the government is the one that signed this and the government is the one that’s still saying, let’s
see what we can do before we can give it to you.” —Hispanic woman, South San Francisco

“This makes me angry, because it’s not right that this was written down so long ago and no one is upholding it; no one goes back to it.
We wrote this down, we need to try to fix this.” —Hispanic woman, South San Francisco

“To me, I don’t [think we should sign treaties] if we just want to sign something to have in writing so the world thinks that we’re getting along with everybody. I would much rather be more honest and fix what’s going on here with the citizens of this country rather
than signing stuff that we’re not going to abide by.” —African-American woman, Atlanta

Because of these initial barriers, we recommend that advocates examine the goals of their communications strategies when deciding how to communicate about international treaties and laws with
key audience members. For situations in which the goal is education about the role and importance
of treaties, we have provided the guidance below for drawing audiences into the conversation and
opening discussions of how treaties can bring about positive change. When the immediate goal is to
build support for specific social justice issues, we have provided guidelines about how to enter into
conversations in ways that connect with people’s current understanding of human rights issues and
their core values.

Themes to Guide Message Development
Values: Equality, community, opportunity, founding U.S. principles.
What’s important: The purpose and desired outcomes of the treaty. Connect first
with why audiences care about the specific human rights issue and then introduce the treaty as a
solution and a means for upholding human rights.
Diverse cultures agree on human rights. To address concern about “forcing” human rights
on those with different cultural values, advocates can inform audiences that many countries have
agreed on common human rights shared by different cultures.

How treaties uphold human rights. This is crucial to combat the belief that treaties are
unenforceable and irrelevant. Successful examples show how state governments are adopting treaty
language in their own laws and how advocates use treaties to pressure governments to change policy. For example, in focus groups, audiences reacted well to the example of Connecticut, where the
17

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

state passed a law using principles from the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights,
declaring that equal access to the highest attainable standard of health is a human right and a priority of the state, and created a commission to promote the health of all of the state’s communities.

Pitfalls of arguing that international treaties restore our standing in the world.
Our poll showed this argument as not persuasive to most audiences, with the exception of African
Americans, those with incomes of less than $25,000, and those with a high school degree or less
education. That said, in focus groups, audiences generally rejected this argument and in some cases
exhibited hostility toward it. For instance, in the case of due process, audiences tended to say that
living up to our national values should be our motivation behind ensuring due process for everyone
here, not concerns about our reputation.

Policymaker lack of awareness of international laws and treaties. Research with state
policy leaders found very little awareness of international treaties or their implications. When educating receptive policymakers, advocates should provide examples of how international treaties have
been applied in states or local jurisdiction and offer technical assistance. Many policymakers interviewed were intrigued by the example set by the City and County of San Francisco, which evaluated
and changed local policies in light of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women’s (CEDAW) principles. Building on this model would require both
demonstrating to sympathetic state and/or local officials how this has been accomplished and providing them with the technical support they would need to figure out how to write policies based on
international treaties.

Building a Message
We recommend using a consistent structure in building messages. Including the following elements
can help advocates stay on message while also helping to edit out excess information that is not
always necessary. Below is an example of how to lead into treaty discussions.
VALUE at Stake
Why should your audience care?

PROBLEM
Documentation and statistics
bolster arguments.

SOLUTION
Avoid issue fatigue—offer a
positive solution.

ACTION
What can your audience do?
The more specific, the better.

18

Our nation was founded on the idea that we all have basic rights. We
have continuously worked to broaden, promote, and fulfill these rights,
and sometimes we have failed. In striving to make them a reality for all,
however, we have made some of the most important leaps forward in
our history. American leadership in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, through which diverse countries and cultures
came together to agree on a basic set of human rights, is a reminder of
how central this notion of rights is to our national values.
But it also reminds us that we have a long way to go to uphold these
rights for everyone here. The Universal Declaration talks about health
care, housing, freedom from torture, and our right to privacy, among
other things. Many of these basic rights are in growing jeopardy, with
Wall Street’s mismanagement and greed forcing millions out of their
homes, with 46 million Americans lacking health insurance, and with
policies that condone torture and invade our privacy.
In this time of great change, let’s return to a nation that respects and
protects the rights all humans share, by working together to pass legislation that further protects our life, liberty, and chance at fulfilling the
American Dream. In turning the tide, we can return to important documents like the Universal Declaration that remind us of what kind of
country we really want to be.
Learn about the Universal Declaration at
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr and write your member of Congress
to encourage a return to human rights values in our policymaking.

Talking Point Suggestions
̈

Over the past 60 years, countries around the world have come together to agree on and document the human rights that we need to uphold and aspire to. Human rights treaties provide us
with the common understanding and tools by which the basic rights of all people can be upheld
because it is better for everyone to live in a society that pays attention to human rights, rather
than one that ignores human rights.

̈

These treaties provide an opportunity for countries with very different cultures and governments
to come together and declare the common rights for all human beings around the world.

̈

By signing these treaties, countries promise to uphold the human rights of their people and the
treaties provide individuals with the tools to help stand up for their human rights in the face of
violations.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
AT A GLANCE
̈

Core Message: It is better for everyone to live in a society that pays attention to human rights,
rather than one that ignores human rights. Human rights treaties provide tools to help ensure
the basic rights of all people are upheld.

̈

Lead with values: Equality, community, opportunity.

̈

Start by emphasizing the purpose and desired outcomes of a specific treaty.

̈

Highlight the coming together of diverse cultures and countries.

̈

Illustrate how the treaties can be used to uphold human rights.

̈

Use carefully the argument that the United States should follow international treaties to set an
example or restore its standing in the world. Not all audiences react well to it.

̈

Remember that policymakers are by and large also unaware of international laws
and treaties. Provide examples of how international treaties have been applied in states or
local jurisdictions.

̈

Build messages with Value, Problem, Solution, Action.

19

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

Human Rights Messaging in Action
Excerpted from: The Huffington Post. March 17, 2009.2

Women’s Rights Are Human Rights
By JoAnn Kamuf
President Obama continues to recognize the vital contributions that women make to the U.S. economy.
… There is no better time, on the heels…of the celebration of International Women’s Day, to express
this commitment to women’s rights to the international community. The President should take this
opportunity to submit the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”) to the Senate for ratification. Ratification of CEDAW would confirm
the President’s commitment to improving the status of women both in domestic and international
policy arenas.

The author starts broadly
and with a familiar value
and figure: economic
contributions and President
Obama. She then moves to
introducing the treaty and
what it would accomplish.

CEDAW ratification would powerfully demonstrate President Obama’s commitment to stand up for
women’s human rights by example at home and by encouraging others abroad. The treaty would
strengthen U.S. laws that promote women’s equality. It would lead to further economic empowerment
of women, improve equality in the workplace, and bolster laws that prohibit discriminatory impact.
U.S. law currently prohibits unequal pay for unequal work, however, existing laws do not go far enough
to ensure equal treatment and equal pay. While the recent Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act provides women
some protection, the law principally deals with women’s ability to seek redress for discriminatory pay
and expands the time frame for women to challenge such discrimination. CEDAW would build on this
by enhancing the underlying standards concerning equal pay and paid parental leave (for men and
women), in ways that would help support American families. Ratification of this major human right
treaty would recognize the significant role that women play in strengthening the United States,
economically, socially and politically.
….

These kinds of concrete
examples of how a treaty
would affect policy are what
amenable audiences need
to think constructively
about treaties.

HEALTH CARE
CORE MESSAGE: Health care, as a public good, is
as essential as food and water, and no one should have
to go without this basic human right.
Approaching health and health care as a human right is powerful because it connects the values of
the human rights movement to those of the broader American public. It is also preferable to using a
consumer approach. Building an audience for equal access to health care requires portraying care as
a public resource that’s stronger when we’re all in it together and as a system that is our right to
expect and demand.

2. www.huffingtonpost.com/joann-kamuf/womens-rights-are-human-r_b_176038.html
20

Themes to Guide Message Development
Values: Equality, security, and community.
Cooperation and community over consumerism. Talking about health care as a right is an
opportunity to move away from a consumerist view. Framing health care only as a good that each
of us must purchase at market rates reinforces a competitive, individualistic mindset, suggesting that
people who lack quality health care are simply poor economic competitors. Moreover, key audiences
are ready to start hearing a message about health care as a “public good.”
Human rights. Our poll showed that 89% of the public
believes health care to be a human right. Among key persuadable audiences, health care is seen as a “basic necessity”
for survival and central to fulfilling the human right to “the
pursuit of happiness.” Whereas most audience members
view emergency medical care as a human right, many also
include a range of services as part of the right to health care,
including preventative care and the availability of contraceptives and abortion.

Access to health care
should be a human right:

Emphasizing solutions that address disparities in
health. Audiences recognize racial, income, and gender disparities in care as human rights violations. Although they
readily acknowledge the existence of health care gaps caused
by income, they are less aware of racial and ethnic and, to a
lesser extent, gender inequalities. Most are more likely to
accept a mix of income, race, and ethnicity as explanations
for disparities. Arguments, then, must contain sufficient
evidence of inequality to surmount a lack of knowledge and
in some cases skepticism.

don’t agree 1%
somewhat don’t agree

11%

somewhat agree

17%

strongly agree 72%

Specific Opportunities and Challenges
The Idea of a Right to Health
̈

Confusing at first—audiences assume health care.

̈

Some warm to the idea, but most don’t go beyond clean air and water and don’t place things like
safe housing under a right to health because they don’t easily see a connection.

“I think more of health care [when you say a right to health].” —Hispanic woman, South San Francisco

“You have a right to clean air and clean water, but as far as being born healthy you can’t dictate that. You can’t say, well, you have to be
born healthy.” — Caucasian man, Chicago

“Everyone has the same opportunity to be healthy…to good equal health opportunities—safe water, food and shelter and clothing and
just your basic human needs to be healthy.” —Caucasian woman, Santa Monica

21

HEALTH CARE

̈

There’s good potential for education about the right to health in longer discussions and an
opportunity to expand ideas about health care. It pushes people to think more broadly about
what affects health and what kinds of policies are important beyond health insurance.

̈

Save discussions about the broader right to health for particularly sympathetic audiences and
longer form media.

̈

Start with connecting environmental dots like clean air and water before moving to other issues.

̈

Sample language: Helping people have good health means more than just good health insurance. We need clean air and water, park spaces, and access to healthy foods, among other things.
Our human rights include more than just a right to health care, but also a fundamental right to
the opportunity for health itself. Our policies need to reflect this broader view if we are to
uphold human rights in this country.

Reproductive Rights and the Right to Abortion
̈

Human rights messages opened up discussions about reproductive rights and abortion in particular.

̈

In some cases, people shifted from agreeing abortion should not be banned to agreement that
such a ban would deny them the right to control their bodies. This shift could move some audiences to conversations about public funding.

̈

Use the human rights frame to push people to think about the difference between protecting and
providing rights.

̈

Sample language: There is no more fundamental human right than the right to have control over
one’s own life. And being able to make one’s own decisions about childbearing is a part of this
right. When we defend the freedom to access and use birth control, to get a safe abortion, or to
learn the facts about reproduction, what we are really defending is this basic human right.

Talking to Policymakers
̈

Many of the policymakers in our research, particularly Democrats and nonpartisan public health
officials, agreed that basic health care was a human right and that the state government thus had
a responsibility to ensure basic care for everyone. Many, however, were pessimistic that this
could happen in the foreseeable future because of the state budget crises and specific policy proposals that had failed in their states.

̈

In seeing health care as a right, these policy leaders see health care as part of the basic right to
take care of one’s bodily survival, just like food or shelter.

̈

In messages, include the perspective of the common good: It is better for us all to live in a society that respects human rights and where people are healthy.

̈

Also important are examples of how lawmakers can fulfill human rights in manageable chunks.

̈

Sample language: Health care is a human right because it is as essential to the ability to lead a
healthy productive life as are food and shelter. Access to health care is part of the American
belief that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This human right
is important for the success of individuals and communities.

22

Building a Message
We recommend using a consistent structure in building messages. Including the following elements
can help advocates stay on message while also helping to edit out excess information that is not
always necessary.
VALUE at Stake
Why should your audience care?

PROBLEM
Documentation and statistics
bolster arguments.

SOLUTION
Avoid issue fatigue—offer a
positive solution.

ACTION
What can your audience do?
The more specific, the better.

Health care is a public good as essential as food or water, and no one
should have to go without this basic human right. It enables us to live
healthy, productive lives and to contribute to our society.
But, right now, our country is failing to protect that right. When people
lose their jobs, their health care goes too, adding to the 46 million
Americans who have no health insurance at all. And millions more have
insurance that’s too expensive and doesn’t cover their basic health
needs. People shouldn’t have to declare bankruptcy or to lose their
savings or even their homes because of crushing hospital and doctor
bills. That hurts us all.
We can protect the human right to health care through reforming our
insurance system to give everyone quality care and by investing in
community clinics and other quality, affordable services in communities
around the country.
Urge your elected officials to protect the human right to health care for
all Americans by supporting these important reforms.

Talking Point Suggestions
̈

Health care is as essential to leading a productive life as food and housing. No one should have
to go without this basic human right in this country. But today we have a system where millions
of people live in fear that one accident or illness will leave them unable to care for themselves
or their families because they lack quality health care. This violates our basic values. Health care
policy should recognize our basic right to health.

̈

It’s time we acknowledged that health care is a basic human right for all. This means we need a
health care system that ensures quality health care services are available to everyone. Americans
need preventive care, reproductive services, mental health care, geriatric care, and substance
abuse treatment. And this system must rest on the understanding that health care is not a commodity to be bought and sold but a human right shared by all. It is time to uphold the human
right to health care because no one should have to go without their basic human rights.

̈

Human rights are held by every person as inherent to their humanity. Upholding the human
right to health care means creating a system that ensures access to adequate health care for every
person. This is the only legitimate goal of a health care system because health care is a public
good that belongs to everyone. Treating health care as a commodity and protecting the private
market at the expense of anyone’s health is inconsistent with human rights principles.

̈

When it comes to health care, it doesn’t make sense to expect people to “go it alone.” We’re all
in it together, and threats to individual health quickly become national challenges. By coming
together to support the development of healthy communities—with access to healthy food, clean
drinking water, parks, and open space—we’ll create a healthier nation.

̈

We have to address and remove obstacles and biases based on income, race, gender, and other
aspects of who we are. There is ample evidence that people of color and those in low-income
areas don’t have the same access to quality health care as others, and that is a violation of basic
human rights. It’s only sensible, fair, and right that we fix this.

23

HEALTH CARE

HEALTH CARE AT A GLANCE
̈

Core Message: Health care, as a public good, is as essential as food and water, and no one
should have to go without this basic human right.

̈

Lead with values: Equality, security, and community.

̈

Stress cooperation and community over consumerism. Audiences are ready to hear
about health care as a public good and not a commodity.

̈

Remember that 89% of the general public consider health care a right.

̈

Connect the notion of a human right to health care to policy implications, such as guaranteeing

a range of quality services.
̈

Emphasize solutions that address disparities in health. Back up disparities arguments with
documentation.

̈

Use caution in introducing treaties and mechanisms. Include concrete examples of
positive impact.

̈

Build messages with Value, Problem, Solution, Action.

Human Rights Messaging in Action
From Amnesty International USA’s Health Care Petition.3

We, the undersigned human rights supporters, recognize that health care is a right, not a privilege or
a commodity. We urge our elected officials to deliver a U.S. health care system that fulfills the human
right to health care—a system that's universal, equitable, and accountable.

Immediately, the language
draws a distinction between
rights and privileges.

We believe that health care is a human right, not a privilege or a commodity. To fulfill the human right
to health care, the U.S. health care system must meet these principles:
1. Universality: This means that everyone in the United States has the human right to health care.
2. Equity: This means that benefits and contributions should be shared fairly to create a system that
works for everyone.
3. Accountability: This means that the U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure that care
comes first.

3. http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&template=x.ascx&action=12025

24

These principles further
outline what viewing health
care as a right means.

From “Campaign in Montana Seeks to Establish Healthcare as a Human Right.” Democracy Now
radio program. April 23, 2009.4

HOST: It’s good to have you with us. So, you just heard Senator Baucus. Your response?
SEN. CHRISTINE KAUFMANN: Well, Senator Baucus’s plan, like so many that are gaining traction
across the nation, is based on a market-based solution. And I think, you know, this public-private partnership, we need to kind of get past that, and we need to have a—conversations that’s rooted in values and in a human right to health care. I think part of the reason that single payer doesn’t gain any
traction is because it’s not valued, it’s not placed in the right kind of context, which is that human—
that health care really is a human right.

Kaufman immediately
emphasizes values and how
they transcend ideas of
market and competition.

HOST: What does it mean to say health care is a human right?
SEN. CHRISTINE KAUFMANN: Well, I think we have to first start by saying this needs to be a part
of our founding documents, in our constitutions, and to be able to say that we, as citizens, can count
on our government to be able to enforce that right. We need to count on them as, you know, an enforcer
of a human right, and that it’s something that’s just part of what we get as citizens in this country.

It’s effective to remind
people to think about
health care as a public,
rather than a consumer
good. Describing
government as an
“enforcer” of rights is
also effective.

LIFE WITHOUT THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR PAROLE
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
CORE MESSAGE: The opportunity for rehabilitation
is a human right that should be upheld for young
people who commit crimes.
We suggest that advocates organize messages about ending life without parole sentences for youth
around three core areas: values, science, and the broken criminal justice system. Effective messages
should begin with strong, easy-to-digest statements that argue within one or more of these frames and
are then supported by facts, statistics, and compelling stories. However, all supporting evidence
should be in the service of underscoring one of these central points. Doing so will result in a powerful narrative, soon recognizable to the persuadable audiences advocates hope to reach. If there are
compelling reasons to avoid using one of these particular frames, messengers can focus on the others. There may also be occasions when straying from this framework is necessary. However, these
departures should be limited and strategically based.

4. http://i4.democracynow.org/2009/4/23/campaign_in_montana_seeks_to_establish

25

LIFE WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PAROLE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

Themes to Guide Message Development
Values. Values include rehabilitation, opportunity, balanced with accountability. Audiences don’t
want to “give up” on someone who is younger than 18 years old. But messages also need a clear
acknowledgment of the need for accountability.
Science. Most audiences understand that youth, particularly teenagers, process decisions differently than adults and accept that youth have greater potential for change. This understanding does
not lead to a desire to release young people from responsibility by any means, but it does lead audiences to think differently about punishment and rehabilitation for this particular group. Bringing
the science of brain development into an argument can be an effective way to open up discussion
about appropriate sentences.
Commonsense solutions for a broken system. Among the general public, knowledge about
the criminal justice system is limited. Understanding of the differences between the adult and juvenile systems, and the mechanisms around how they relate, is even more limited. Thus, it should not
be assumed that even sympathetic audiences immediately agree that reform is needed. However, by
using ample supporting evidence, arguments about fixing the system can be an effective way to place
the unfair sentencing of youth into a broader spectrum of issues, increasing potential allies. When
using this frame, it is extremely important to offer solutions and alternatives. Those arguing for
reform need to show that they have positive solutions that uphold the values of fairness and justice,
are commonsense and workable, and provide opportunities for rehabilitation and public safety.

Specific Opportunities and Challenges
Life Without Parole for Youth and Human Rights
̈

Consider that most members of the key audience do not view the sentence of life without parole
for youth as an inherent human rights violation at all. Beginning with blanket statements of
rights violations can therefore move persuadable audiences in the wrong direction.
“I don’t think human right is the right word. I think there should be an opportunity for rehabilitation, but I don’t know if I’d put it under a human right.” —Caucasian woman, Columbus

̈

Start by addressing the idea of an opportunity for rehabilitation. Audiences are more likely to
see the denial of the opportunity for rehabilitation as a human rights violation rather than the
mere existence of life without parole sentencing.

̈

Sample language: It benefits all of us to rehabilitate young people who commit serious crimes.
Providing the opportunity to change and grow is a human right we should strive to uphold
because it is better for everyone to live in a society that upholds human rights, rather than one
that ignores human rights.

26

“Manipulative” Language
̈

Consider that focus group participants had a strong negative reaction to messages that referred
to life without the possibility of parole as “sentencing young people to eventually die in prison.”
They felt that this message was extreme and manipulative and it did not put them in the mood
to hear further arguments.
“It’s sensational sounding…putting it down there to make you feel bad, that’s what it feels like
they’re trying to do.” —Caucasian Man, Columbus

̈

Avoid referring to teenagers as “children” for the purposes of arguing against life without
parole. “Youth” and “young people” are less likely to provoke negative backlash from key
audiences.

̈

Focus on the need for an opportunity for rehabilitation.

̈

Alternative language: Right now our system of justice does not give many young people who
commit serious crimes the opportunity for a second chance. Instead, young people who commit
serious crimes are being sentenced to life without parole, which means that they will spend the
next 40, 50, or 60 years in prison with no chance of release. Life without parole for young people is life without the opportunity for rehabilitation, and that is wrong.

Balancing the Needs of Youth and Society
̈

Avoid talking only about how the sentence damages youth. Most audiences want to be assured
that society is protected from potential repeat offenders.
“I think it starts out as it’s about what’s good for the youth, the individual youth that gets in
trouble, but if they come back for the second time they get in trouble, then it’s a little more
balanced between what’s good for society and what’s good for the kid, and then if they come
back for a third time and a fourth time and a fifth time, then it becomes more weighted
towards what’s good for society as opposed to what’s best for the child.”
—Caucasian man, Columbus

̈

Address how society can be made better when youth who have made serious mistakes have the
opportunity to change and grow/rehabilitate.

̈

Sample language: When young people commit serious crimes, they should be held accountable
but in a way that reflects their capacity for rehabilitation. Young people are still developing mentally and emotionally. Their punishment needs to be focused on rehabilitation and reintegration
into society, giving young people the opportunity to change and grow. We can do better by providing sentencing alternatives that are in the best interest of the young person and society.

27

LIFE WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PAROLE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

Building a Message
We recommend using a consistent structure in building messages. Including the following elements
can help advocates stay on message while also helping to edit out excess information that is not
always necessary.
VALUE at Stake
Why should your audience care?

PROBLEM
Documentation and statistics
bolster arguments.

SOLUTION
Avoid issue fatigue—offer a
positive solution.

ACTION
What can your audience do?
The more specific, the better.

When young people commit serious crimes, they should be held
accountable but in a way that reflects their capacity to change and
grow and provides an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration.
Right now our system of justice does not give many young people who
commit serious crimes the opportunity for a second chance. Instead,
young people who commit serious crimes are being sentenced to life
without parole, which means that they will spend the next 40,50, or 60
years in prison with no chance of release. Life without parole for young
people is life without the opportunity for rehabilitation, and that
is wrong.
Eliminating life without the possibility of parole sentences will protect
a young person’s right to the opportunity for rehabilitation and allow
for careful review to determine whether, years later, young offenders
continue to pose a threat to the community. Ending this practice would
be no guarantee of release—only the opportunity to prove remorse
and rehabilitation. This alternative to life without parole sentencing
appropriately recognizes the particular capacity of youth to change
and grow over time and focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration
into society.
Educate your elected officials about alternatives to denying youth the
opportunity for rehabilitation and the need to eliminate this sentence.

Talking Point Suggestions
̈

Youth are still developing both physically and emotionally and their brains, not just their bodies, are not yet fully grown. Therefore, youth have greater potential to change and grow. When
young people commit serious crimes, they should be held accountable but in a way that reflects
their capacity for rehabilitation.

̈

When young people commit serious crimes, they should be held accountable in a way that
reflects their greater capacity to change and grow. Research confirms that youth do not have
adult levels of judgment, impulse control, or ability to assess risks. Moreover, as the American
Psychological Association has noted, juveniles, because of their immaturity and status as
minors, are less able to control their own environment, resist peer pressure, or remove themselves
from dangerous surroundings and negative influences.

̈

Because of their relatively unformed characters, they have a better chance than adults at
reforming their behavior and for rehabilitation. They deserve meaningful and periodic reviews
of their sentences to ensure that those who can prove they have reformed are given an opportunity to re-enter society as contributing citizens.

̈

Dozens of long-term studies show that most juvenile offenders mature out of crime. Adolescents
are more capable of rehabilitation than adults, either as a result of maturing naturally or through
the intervention of a conviction and sentence. Experts in neuroscience, social science, and psychology agree that the same immaturity and flexibility that make teenagers more susceptible to
outside influences also make them strong candidates for rehabilitation.

28

̈

Many of those sentenced to life without parole as youth received the sentence for crimes not
considered to be the most serious offenses. In some places, courts are mandated to try youth as
adults for certain crimes and are then mandated to sentence those convicted to life without parole. The result is that neither judge nor jury had discretion to consider the individual circumstance of the case and to impose a less extreme sentence.

̈

Eliminating the sentence of life without parole for youth does not mean that young people will
be released without careful, thorough consideration of their fitness to resume life in society. But
youth should be given the opportunity to have their sentences reviewed later in their lives by the
same authorities who are entrusted with making parole decisions in the case of thousands of
adult offenders. It is those authorities who will ultimately decide whether adolescents who have
served significant portions of their sentences have rehabilitated themselves, pose no threat to
others, and are deserving of release.

LIFE WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PAROLE
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AT A GLANCE
̈

Core Message: The opportunity for rehabilitation is a human right that should be upheld for
young people who commit crimes.

̈

Lead with values: Rehabilitation, opportunity, balanced with accountability.

̈

Include science-based arguments about brain development and young people’s capacity
for change and rehabilitation.

̈

Promote commonsense solutions to a broken system, including specifics on how the
system needs reform, and concrete alternatives to life without parole sentences for
young people.

̈

If using a human rights frame, talk about the right to the opportunity for rehabilitation
instead of stating that life without parole sentences for youth are human rights violations in
themselves.

̈

Refer to teenagers accused of serious crimes as “youth,” “young people,” or “teenagers,” instead
of “children,” which audiences find manipulative.

̈

Talk about youth being sentenced to spend the next 40, 50, or 60 years in prison instead of
“dying in prison,” a term to which audiences react badly.

̈

Balance the needs of youth and society by addressing how society can be made better
when youth who have made serious mistakes have the opportunity to change and grow.

̈

Build messages with Value, Problem, Solution, Action.

29

LIFE WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PAROLE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

Human Rights Messaging in Action
From “Editorial: A Shameful Record.” The New York Times. February 6, 2008.5

Some juvenile criminals commit horrible crimes, and the justice system should punish them accordingly.
Juveniles, though, are not adults. Even their brain development is different, making them less able than
older people to resist impulses. Consideration should also be given to the nature of the crime. In some
cases, juveniles have been imprisoned for life for acting as accessories or lookouts for adults. Putting
a 16-year-old who played such a role in jail for perhaps 65 years is an extraordinarily harsh, and
expensive, societal response.

Balances the accountability
and the needs of the young
person.

From “Editorial: Parole Reform.” The Gainesville Sun. September 3, 2009.6

The prevailing idea that juveniles who commit serious crimes should “do the time” is difficult to overcome. Even Weinstein agrees that juveniles facing life imprisonment made a “major mistake,” and
some were convicted of heinous crimes (such as rape).
Yet, a state and society should also recognize that juveniles so young that they aren’t permitted—for
their own good—to drive a car, buy cigarettes or alcohol or enter into contracts, ought to be given some
considerations in sentencing and have an opportunity for rehabilitation and redemption. Weinstein’s
bill would provide, but not mandate, those opportunities and a chance at parole under strict conditions.
A bill in Congress—HR 2289—would do the same.

RACIAL PROFILING
CORE MESSAGE: Racial profiling violates the human
rights to fair treatment and freedom from discrimination
and violates American values of fairness and justice.
We suggest that messages around racial profiling center on two main themes: values and positive
solutions. Our recent focus groups built on the findings of The Opportunity Agenda’s 2007 poll,
conducted by Belden Russonello & Stewart, which found that 84% of Americans believed racial
profiling to be a human rights violation. In addition, the same poll found that Americans feel strongly
that people should be free from discrimination, have equal opportunities, and be treated fairly in the

5. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06wed5.html?_r=2
6. http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090903/OPINION01/909031043/1017&Title=Editorial-Parolereform&template=printpicart

30

The author relies on the
values of rehabilitation and
redemption, once making a
point about the nature of
youth.

criminal justice system and that all of these things are human rights. Policymakers, too, felt that
issues relating to protecting equal treatment based on race were human rights issues and that people
had a right to be protected against unfair practices.

National Poll Findings on Equal Treatment and Race
Percentage saying “strongly should be a human right”:
Equal opportunities regardless of race

Being treated fairly in justice system

Freedom from discrimination

86%

83%

83%

Percentage saying “agree”
When police stop people solely based on their race, it’s a violation of their human rights

0

20

40

60

84%

80

100

Themes to Guide Message Development
Values: Equality, freedom from discrimination, and fair treatment.
Racial profiling as a human rights violation. Audiences believe that racial profiling is a
violation of both human rights and the values on which the country was founded. Messages should
remind audiences of these ideals but acknowledge that, as a country, we’ve never fully achieved them.
The existence of racial profiling is one example of our falling short, and policies must be in place to
eradicate the practice.

Positive solutions. It is important in communications to begin by stating what the messengers are
in favor of, and not just what they oppose. By beginning with an affirmation of core American values and human rights, messages can lead audiences through an argument about racial profiling in a
more solution-oriented manner, ending with positive alternatives to the practice that effectively protect communities and individuals.

31

RACIAL PROFILING

Specific Opportunities and Challenges
Defining the Term
̈

Some people focus on the term “profile” as something that police construct based on the
physical profile of a suspect reported to be involved in a specific event or crime, indicating that
police are acting based on evidence rather than based on stereotypes and appearances.

̈

Messages should underscore that racial profiling is not evidence-based—it is stereotyping.

̈

Sample language: Racial profiling is the ineffective practice of relying specifically on stereotypes
in law enforcement practices. It means singling people out because of their race and is not only
ineffective and a waste of time, but also a human rights violation. We need to make sure law
enforcement personnel are using evidence-based practices to make us all safer.

Racial Profiling As an Entry to Discussions of Broader Criminal Justice Disparities
̈

Most in the key audiences agree that there are systemic racial disparities in the justice system.

̈

Following a thorough discussion of racial profiling as a human rights violation, members of the
key audiences are also willing to accept broader racial disparities in the criminal justice system
as human rights violations.

̈

Sample language: Racial profiling is not the only systemic problem within our criminal justice
system when it comes to race. People of color face violations as suspects, defendants, and prisoners and racial profiling is only one piece of the puzzle. We must root out unequal treatment
and ensure that everyone is treated fairly by the police and our entire justice system. Ignoring
this reality is a violation of values and human rights.

Countering Racial Profiling As an Effective Police Tool
̈

Some are likely to say racial profiling may be acceptable, even if it may be unfair and unequal
treatment, if it somehow keeps communities safe. They are hesitant to limit police authority to
act, often describing such situations as mere inconveniences.
“I think there are benefits. Sometimes the police will pull someone over just because and it can
lead to a big bust, finding a bunch of kilos in the trunk. So when you racial profile people,
sometimes you do get that good bust. It depends that on how far they take the profiling. Do
they pull them over just to search them or do they pull them over to physically degrade them?”
—African American man, Houston

̈

Messages stress both the inefficiencies that can be caused by racial profiling and inherent rights
violations.

̈

Sample language: When police are relying only on race to make decisions about who to pull
over, or who to investigate, it is not only inefficient law enforcement, but also a human rights
violation, which puts us all at risk. We need to make sure police have effective tools and do not
rely on outdated and inherently harmful practices.

32

Building a Message
We recommend using a consistent structure in building messages. Including the following elements
can help advocates stay on message while also helping to edit out excess information that is not
always necessary.
VALUE at Stake
Why should your audience care?

PROBLEM
Documentation and statistics
bolster arguments.

SOLUTION
Avoid issue fatigue—offer a
positive solution.

ACTION
What can your audience do?
The more specific, the better.

The color of your skin shouldn’t affect the way you’re treated in our
system of justice. That’s a basic American belief, and it’s recognized at
home and abroad as a fundamental human right.
However, when African Americans, Latinos, and other people of color
are targeted by practices like racial profiling, which relies on stereotypes over evidence to determine who to focus investigations on, these
core values are violated.
The policies of our local, state of federal law enforcement must be
rooted in our national values, focused on our communities’ safety, and
protective of our basic human rights.
Call on our local officials to review police statistics and procedures to
ensure that this outdated and ineffective practice is not in use.

Talking Point Suggestions
̈

Law enforcement’s job is to keep people safe while protecting human rights. Many agencies
recognize that this means using effective practices that focus on the facts of a crime or specific
information about individuals suspected to be involved. Practices like racial profiling that focus
on stereotypes are a violation of human rights and have no place in any law enforcement policies or procedures. We need to ensure that no one is a victim of racial profiling and that law
enforcement agencies are focused on research-based and effective practices to uphold the law.

̈

As Americans, we want our government’s policies to uphold human rights and be free of racial
bias. Racial profiling— that is, targeting individuals just because of their skin color, religion, or
country of origin—violates our American values of fairness and justice. Unfortunately, too many
law enforcement departments across the country are tolerating racial profiling. This practice
divides our society and makes our justice system unfair. And, racial profiling violates an individual’s human rights to fair treatment and freedom from discrimination.

̈

We need to make it clear that it is unacceptable for those who enforce our laws to stereotype
people based on the color of their skin, religion, or nation of origin. We must outlaw racial profiling to make it clear that law enforcement should act on facts and evidence and not racial bias.
If one group can be singled out based on race or ethnicity or religion, none of us will be safe to
enjoy the rights that the United States stands for.

33

RACIAL PROFILING

RACIAL PROFILING AT A GLANCE
̈

Core Message: Racial profiling violates the human rights to fair treatment and freedom from
discrimination and violates American values of fairness and justice.

̈

Lead with values: Equality, freedom from discrimination, and fair treatment.

̈

Remember that 84% of the American public views racial profiling as a human
rights violation.

̈

Move beyond only denouncing racial profiling and promote positive solutions and
alternatives.

̈

Use racial profiling as an entry to discussions of broader criminal justice
disparities.

̈

Explain why racial profiling is not an effective police tool and a human rights
violation. Be ready to counter those who believe racial profiling may be acceptable, even if it
may be unfair and unequal treatment, if it somehow keeps communities safe.

̈

Define the term and fully explain that racial profiling is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Criminal profiles may use characteristics such as race to describe a
specific suspect. But racial profiling means singling people out only because of race.

̈

Build messages with Value, Problem, Solution, Action.

Human Rights Messaging in Action
From “Racial Profiling Background.” Amnesty International website.7

According to the U.S. Constitution and international treaties and law, every person has the fundamental right to equal protection under the law regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or national
origin. Racial profiling is an insidious violation of human rights that can affect people in both public
and private places—in their homes or at work, or while driving, flying or walking. Racial profiling by
law enforcement instills fear and distrust among members of targeted communities, making them less
likely to cooperate with criminal investigations or to seek police protection when victimized. Multiple
studies have shown that when police focus on race, even as one of several predictive factors, they tend
to pay less attention to actual criminal behavior. This is a dangerous trend that can inhibit effective law
enforcement and ultimately can endanger the lives of all persons who depend on law enforcement
for protection.

7. http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/other/rp-racial-profiling-background/page.do?id=1106647

34

Drawing on U.S. founding
documents along with
international law is a good
strategy for tapping
into values.
Makes points about why
and how racial profiling is
not an effective law enforcement strategy.

From: “Sanctioned Bias—The Problem of Racial Profiling in the United States of America.”
The American Civil Liberties Union statement.8

There is incontrovertible proof that racial profiling does not give law enforcement officials an advantage in fighting crime. Furthermore, the premise on which it is based—that certain ethnic minorities
are more likely than whites to be in violation of the law—is simply wrong. Racial profiling is a
distraction because law enforcement officers begin focusing on the wrong suspect. When a U.S.
government building was bombed in 1995, law enforcement officials immediately began to focus its
investigation on Middle Eastern suspects, but the actual perpetrator was a white war veteran. Studies
consistently show that “hit rates”—the discovery of contraband or evidence of other illegal conduct—
among minorities stopped and searched by the police are lower than “hit rates” for whites who are
stopped and searched.

Gives concrete examples of
how racial profiling hinders
law enforcement.

DUE PROCESS
CORE MESSAGE: Due process is a human right
central to the American justice system. American values
of justice and fairness only stand strong when we
uphold the human right to due process.
Key audiences strongly agree that due process in the legal system is a human right and believe denying due process violates the human rights to security, fair treatment, and freedom from government
persecution. Most commonly, these audiences recognize due process as giving someone a fair trial,
but many also believe due process refers to following a set of standardized rules and procedures to
protect individuals from being unfairly treated or imprisoned. Timeliness in granting due process is
central to audience concerns.
Our research focused on two specific groups whose due process rights have been in jeopardy in
recent years—immigrants and terror suspects—to further illuminate due process themes. The following guidelines are based on those discussions. Nearly all participants agreed that everyone,
including undocumented immigrants and terror suspects, is entitled to fair treatment in the justice system and freedom from mistreatment by law enforcement officials.

Themes to Guide Message Development
Values: Fairness, equality, America’s founding principles. Assert that the United States should
uphold the human right of due process in order to stand up for American values. Focus on the goal
of ensuring that the United States upholds human rights and due process, over the goal of protecting the specific rights of terrorism suspects or undocumented immigrants.

8. http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/racial%20profiling%20statement%20for%20un.pdf

35

DUE PROCESS

Due process as central to the credibility of our justice system and the general health
of due process protections for all Americans. Highlight the idea that once we start denying rights for
one individual or type of people, it puts all individuals’ rights at risk.

Avoid getting bogged down in the details of the process for trying detainees.
When arguing for or against a specific process or type of court, a message framed in terms of values is
always more effective. You are on higher ground if you can keep the debate centered on whether the
specific process under debate upholds the government’s commitment to due process and human rights.

Deportation and raids not seen as violations in and of themselves. Audiences do see
the unfair deportation of legal immigrants as human rights violations, but this is not the case for
undocumented immigrants. Raids are seen as part of law enforcement’s natural job, but detention
without a trial or access to a lawyer is seen as a rights violation.

Avoid messages focusing on boosting the international reputation of the United
States. These are a turn-off for some participants who believe that the United States should uphold
human rights because it is the right thing to do, not to improve our image in the eyes of the world.

Include key information about how the current system denies due process rights
to immigrants. Participants are not aware of how our laws violate due process, and several have
a hard time believing that this could be happening. Therefore, it is important to keep the language
simple and straightforward. If the rhetoric strays from a simple description, the message’s credibility could be put into question.
“Personally, I think everyone in the world is really entitled to [due process], that’s my personal
feeling…I think that it doesn’t matter if you’re an illegal alien or if you’re an American citizen,
there is a due process… those individuals who are not U.S. citizens, but they’re in America,
they see this country as the great country that it is because we do things the right way.”
—Caucasian man, New York
“This is what we’re all about. That’s the United States of America.” —Caucasian man, New York
“Due process is quintessential to our society.” —Caucasian woman, Columbus

Specific Opportunities and Challenges
Guantanamo Bay
̈

Audiences want to ensure due process for detainees as the country moves forward with closing
Guantanamo.

̈

This support is not based on a desire to give the individual terrorism suspects due process rights,
but rather is motivated by national interest—standing up for what they believe the United States
should be about and bringing closure to the U.S. violation of its own values at Guantanamo.

̈

While the participants believe giving the Guantanamo detainees a fair trial should be the end
result, on their own many do not have a clear idea of the best way to go about doing this, and
some are concerned about public safety if there is a chance potentially dangerous detainees would
be released.

̈

Sample language: Upholding the human right of due process is central to who we are as a country. This means ensuring due process for everyone, including those currently held at Guantanamo
Bay, should be a priority.

36

Building a Message
We recommend using a consistent structure in building messages. Including the following elements
can help advocates stay on message while also helping to edit out excess information that is not
always necessary. Below is an example of how to lead into due process discussions.
VALUE at Stake
Why should your audience care?

PROBLEM
Documentation and statistics
bolster arguments.

SOLUTION
Avoid issue fatigue—offer a
positive solution.

ACTION
What can your audience do?
The more specific, the better.

Since the Declaration of Independence, America has strived to uphold
fairness and due process.
But today, a broken immigration system denies basic human rights and
due process to people who live here. In the aftermath of 9-11, immigrants have borne the brunt of harsh policies, with the U.S. government
allowing raids and arrests without warrants, holding thousands in inhumane detention conditions, and deporting people without a fair trial.
We need to change these laws and ensure that our government
upholds the human rights and civil liberties of all people in the
United States.
Email your Congressional member now and urge him or her to overhaul
the broken immigration system and restore fairness and due process so
that we can uphold our American ideals.9

Talking Point Suggestions
̈

Due process is a human right central to the U.S. justice system. We should not operate dual systems of justice or deny due process, for undocumented immigrants or anyone else. Our American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we have one system of justice for
everyone. If one group can be denied due process, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that
America stands for.

̈

The United States was founded on the belief that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness and on basic notions of fairness and justice. Denying due process to any
group violates the values of fairness and justice our country was founded upon.

̈

In the aftermath of 9-11, our country has seen a steady erosion of basic human rights. Some of
our laws have been denying basic due process to thousands of people in the United States, and
many policies discriminate against people on the basis of national origin, race, religion, or citizenship. Even now, the Department of Homeland Security continues to arrest people without
warrants, denies them phone calls to their lawyers, holds them in inhumane detention conditions,
and deports them without a fair trial. We shouldn’t let the government treat anyone like this
because denying human rights and due process to some puts all of our freedoms at risk.

9. From the Restore Fairness Campaign. http://action.restorefairness.org/o/6023/t/7236/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1088

37

DUE PROCESS

DUE PROCESS AT A GLANCE
̈

Core Message: Due process is a human right central to the American justice system.
American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we uphold the human right to
due process.

̈

Lead with values: Fairness, equality, America’s founding principles.

̈

Emphasize due process as central to the credibility of our justice system.

̈

Avoid getting bogged down in the details of the process for trying detainees.

̈

Understand that deportation and raids are not seen as violations in and of

themselves.
̈

Avoid messages focused on restoring the international reputation of the United States.
Audiences find this an unconvincing, and even weak, argument for protecting due process, which
they see as a core American value that we should protect as such.

̈

Include key information about how the current system denies due process rights
to immigrants.

̈

Build messages with Value, Problem, Solution, Action.

38

Human Rights Messaging in Action
From the ACLU website.10

Attorney General Withdraws Bush Administration Ruling Denying Immigrants
Protection From Lawyers’ Mistakes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON—In a major step towards restoring key legal protections for immigrants facing deportation, Attorney General Eric Holder today withdrew a last-minute Bush administration order that severely
restricted the right of immigrants to reopen immigration cases lost because of their lawyers’ mistakes. …
“Attorney General Holder correctly recognized that fairness and due process apply to everyone
including immigrants,” said Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “By
restoring the longstanding right of individuals to challenge immigration proceedings lost because of
lawyers’ mistakes, innocent immigrants at risk of being deported through no fault of their own are once
again protected by the rule of law. Holder's decision will profoundly affect the lives of many immigrants
and their families.” …

Gelernt stresses that this
issue is about everyone, not
just immigrants.

“The winners today are fairness and due process. Attorney General Holder has taken a huge step
in the right direction, and we applaud his decision. The Obama administration recognizes that immigrants facing deportation, including longtime permanent residents with U.S. citizen children and
family, should not be denied fair hearings because of incompetent or unscrupulous lawyers who fail in
their duty to provide proper representation to vulnerable immigrants, many of whom lack fluency in
English and an understanding of the complex procedures that govern their hearings. It is now essential that the Justice Department take the same position in pending court cases,” said Lucas Guttentag,
Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Guttentag stresses values
over legal jargon, while
connecting the problem to
specific issues that audiences
are likely to understand,
such as inadequate legal
representation.

10. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/39753prs20090603.html

39

IMMIGRATION

IMMIGRATION
CORE MESSAGE: We need workable solutions to
immigration problems that uphold our nation’s values
and allow people who contribute and participate to live
in the country legally with their human rights protected.
We suggest that advocates organize immigration messages around the core narrative and message
above. A “Core Narrative” is a set of broad themes and values that help to connect with persuadable audiences and build support for change. Anti-immigrant spokespeople have a clear narrative
with two main elements: law and order and the overwhelming of scarce resources. Over the past
two years, pro-immigration advocates and communications experts have developed a pro-immigrant
narrative designed to move hearts, minds, and policy. These broad themes help advocates tell a more
united story about immigration and policies that affect immigrants. Although upholding human
rights should clearly be a central goal of these policies, research reveals that human rights arguments
can be effective in a limited number of circumstances on immigration but can be counterproductive
on others.

Themes to Guide Message Development
Workable Solutions. Americans are hungry for solutions when it comes to immigration, and
they understand that punitive, anti-immigrant approaches are not realistic or workable. We can win
by showing ourselves to be voices of solutions and can-do pragmatism. Messages without solutions
are easily dismissed.

Upholding Our Nation’s Values. The most prominent positive values behind the core narrative are fairness and accountability. Many progressive audiences also see freedom from exploitation
as important. And many native-born Latinos and African Americans bring up the value of equality
when talking about how immigrants from different countries are treated.

Moving Forward Together. These messages tap most Americans’ views that immigrants work
hard and are already contributing to the economy in some ways.

Specific Opportunities and Challenges
Human Rights Messages
̈

40

For issues like medical care for undocumented immigrants or legalization for the undocumented,
human rights arguments can actively dissuade audiences from supporting positive reforms. Only
49% of Americans agree that “the human rights of illegal immigrants in the United States are
violated when they are denied access to medical care.”

̈

Try to stay within the core narrative when messaging on immigration issues. Human rights as a
theme can be most effective within this framework with messages on due process, freedom from
discrimination, and protection from hate crimes.

̈

Sample language: The United States was founded on the belief that everyone has the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Denying due process to any group violates the values of fairness and justice our country was founded upon. We must uphold the human rights of all people
to keep our justice system fair and effective.

Talking About Status
̈

Most key audiences see little difference between the rights of documented immigrants and U.S.
citizens.

̈

But, they do begin to hesitate when the conversation turns to undocumented immigrants and the
idea of conditional rights begins to emerge—the notion that if someone breaks societal rules, they
give up some rights. Because this is not useful or helpful to immigration messaging or human
rights messaging, we recommend against beginning most conversations about undocumented
immigrants with a human rights frame.
“When you choose to do something like [come into the country illegally] you should lose
some of your rights.” —Caucasian woman, Chicago
“If they are here working and not paying taxes, they have to go. We are working and paying
taxes and that means we are supporting the rights of everyone. They can’t come here and not
pay taxes and expect support.” — Hispanic woman, Atlanta

̈

Instead, focus on the government’s actions by asking to fix the immigration system in a way that
upholds our nation’s values.

̈

Alternative language: Harsh policies that force people into the shadows are
not consistent with what our nation stands for. Some anti-immigrant forces
want to ban undocumented immigrant families from renting apartments or
sending their kids to school. These kinds of policies are unworkable and are
not consistent with our values. We need Congress to pass just and humane
immigration reform.

The human rights of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are violated when
they are denied access to medical
care. Strongly agree:
General population:

24%

Health Care and Immigration

Human Rights Champions:

48%

̈

Young Cautious HR Supporters:

00%

U.S. HR Supporters:

52%

̈
̈

Most key audiences agree that health care should be provided in emergency
situations and that the government should provide health care for anyone in
custody.
But most don’t see the denial of medical care to undocumented immigrants
as a human rights violation.

This breakdown shows the importance
of knowing your audience when talking
about immigration and human rights.

It can help conversations to talk about undocumented immigrants contributing to health care. (Although we recommend moving away from
“contributing” and commodity language in general health care messages,
it is still necessary to allay key audiences’ concerns about the cost and
address the values of fairness and responsibility when talking about
undocumented immigrants.)

U.S. Human Rights Supporters are the
only cluster who reliably consider
denying undocumented immigrants
medical attention to be a human rights
violation and thus are a good place to
start with arguments about health
care. However, there is much work to
do with Young Cautious Human Rights
Supporters on the issue, who actually
fall below the general population in
their support for this statement.

41

IMMIGRATION

̈

Sample language: Affordable health care for everyone in the United States is a necessity. We need
a health care system where everyone contributes to the cost of medical care and no one has to
fear that one accident or illness will leave them unable to care for themselves or their families.
In this system, everyone contributes and everyone is secure in knowing that they can get health
care; this needs to include all immigrants, legal or not. If we leave out millions of people living
in our communities, the system will not work and will affect all of us.

Talking to Policymakers
̈

Every policymaker in our study agreed that legal immigrants have just as much right to government protection of their human rights as citizens. However, views on their role in protecting and
providing human rights for undocumented immigrants are divided, usually down ideological
and partisan lines.

̈

When speaking about due process for immigrants, almost all of the leaders agree that state government should protect the rights of all immigrants—regardless of their immigration status—to
a fair judicial process. But, providing access to health care for undocumented immigrants gains
agreement from some progressive leaders but also strong opposition from conservatives.

̈

Using a human rights frame in talking about immigration is likely to resonate with only the most
progressive leaders.

Building a Message
We recommend using a consistent structure in building messages. Including the following elements
can help advocates stay on message while also helping to edit out excess information that is not
always necessary.
VALUE at Stake
Why should your audience care?

PROBLEM
Documentation and statistics
bolster arguments.

SOLUTION
Avoid issue fatigue—offer a
positive solution.

ACTION
What can your audience do?
The more specific, the better.

42

When it comes to immigration, we need real solutions that uphold our
nation’s values and move us forward together. We need a system that’s
fair and effective for everyone.
But our current immigration system is badly broken. There is no way
for undocumented immigrants to get legal, including people who were
here as young children. And unscrupulous employers can prey on
workers and pay low wages.
We need practical solutions to fix our broken immigration system,
so people can get legal, pay taxes, and participate fully in American
society.
The time is now for the President and Congress to pass commonsense
immigration reform. It will help our economy and help all workers, and
it’s the right thing to do.

Talking Point Suggestions
̈

We need workable solutions that uphold our values and move us forward together.

̈

Due process and fair treatment in the justice system are basic human rights, and respecting them
is a crucial part of who we are as a nation. There is a lot of evidence that immigrants—both documented and undocumented—are being denied due process in this country. If anyone is denied
that basic human right, we are all at risk.

̈

We need to fix our broken immigration system, so people can get legal, contribute, and participate fully in the American economy and society. We’re not going to round up and deport 12 million undocumented men, women, and children, so let’s focus on realistic solutions like creating
a way for people to get legal and cracking down on employers that exploit or underpay their
workers.

̈

Building border walls and raiding people’s homes and workplaces are just not realistic solutions,
and they violate basic values and human rights. We need real solutions that will work to fix our
broken system.

̈

We need policies that allow everyone who lives here to work and participate in our society. Our
system must protect all workers from exploitation and depressed wages and allow us to all rise
together.

̈

Harsh policies that force people into the shadows are not consistent with our values. Some antiimmigrant forces want to ban undocumented immigrant families from renting apartments or
sending their kids to school. These kinds of policies are unworkable and are not consistent with
our values. We need to fix our system so that immigrants who came here to work, pay taxes, and
learn English can become legal and contribute fully.

̈

We need everyone’s contribution to get us out of the mess we’re in. To really fix the economy,
we need to fix our immigration system to eliminate the underground economy it perpetuates. By
legalizing the undocumented workforce, we will bring these workers out of the shadows and put
more workers and employers on our tax rolls.

̈

Due process is a human right central to the U.S. justice system. We should not operate dual systems of justice or deny due process, for undocumented immigrants or anyone else. Our American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we have one system of justice for
everyone. If one group can be denied due process, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that
America stands for.

43

IMMIGRATION

IMMIGRATION AT A GLANCE
̈

Core Message: We need workable solutions to immigration problems that uphold our nation’s
values and allow people who contribute and participate to live in the country legally with their
human rights protected.

̈

Structure Messages Around the Core Narrative.
➥

Workable Solutions. Americans are hungry for solutions when it comes to immigration, and they understand that punitive, anti-immigrant approaches are not realistic or
workable. Messages without solutions are easily dismissed.

➥

Upholding Our Nation’s Values. The most prominent positive values behind the
core narrative are fairness and accountability. Many progressive audiences also see freedom from exploitation as important.

➥

Moving Forward Together. These messages tap most Americans’ views that immigrants work hard and are already contributing to the economy in some ways.

̈

People see little difference between the rights that documented immigrants and U.S. citizens
should enjoy.

̈

Proceed with caution on explicit human rights messages when it comes to talking
about undocumented immigrants. Due process, freedom from discrimination,
and protection from hate crimes are the most promising places to use human
rights messaging.

̈

Focus on the government’s actions by asking to fix the immigration system in a way that upholds
our nation’s values.

̈

Build messages with Value, Problem, Solution, Action.

44

Human Rights Messaging in Action
From The Des Moines Register, June 23, 2009.

Guest column: “Toll too high: Push forward now to reform immigration”

Thomas Rendon of Des Moines is a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.
We need comprehensive immigration reform now. The current policies don’t work, and the realities of
those policies are exacting a toll we can no longer tolerate.
That was the message we received when a delegation from Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
and the Iowa Immigration Reform Network attended the Reform Immigration for America Summit
earlier this month. Nearly 800 people from more than 40 states gathered in Washington, D.C., to learn
about how to fix our failed immigration policy.
The system abuses working families, perpetuates a vulnerable underclass in the United States, deprives
hope for family reunification, denies an orderly process for immigrants to legalize their status and prevents communities from tapping into the talents and potential of valuable contributors to our society
and economy. The summit mobilized around an urgent call to members of Congress to take action on
immigration reform, an effort that generated 125,000 faxes and 7,500 calls from individuals around
the country, including Iowa.

In listing the problems with
the current system, Rendon
makes sure to describe
explicitly rights violations
that the public are not
aware of.

A growing consensus is emerging among a variety of interest groups—business, labor, immigrants’
rights groups, and communities of faith—that immigration reform is needed now. By reform, we mean
workable policy solutions that reflect the common interests of the American people: establishing order
at the border; focusing law-enforcement resources on criminals, not workers and parents; meeting
American work-force demands; providing a reasonable path to citizenship; lifting wages for all workers; and generating billions in tax revenues that now go uncollected because some employers are
operating in the shadows.

Here he uses the “moving
forward together” and
“workable solutions”
themes to underscore why
our solutions are good for
the entire community.

President Barack Obama pledged during the election to address immigration reform in 2009. Meanwhile, in 2006 and 2008, Iowa witnessed two devastating raids that brought upheaval and economic
disaster to their communities. A popular restaurant owner was jailed and sent back to a nation he left
as a teenager. Others defer their pursuit of the American dream for as long as three decades while
awaiting a visa.
….
America wants a system that reflects its values, one that combines fairness, accountability, justice
and a heavy dose of pragmatism. We want a nation that lives its motto of e pluribus unum, out of
many, one.

Rendon closes with a strong
affirmation of American
values.

45

I

j

I

Media Tools,
Guidance,
and Samples
Getting Your Story Told: Once audiences are identified and researched, and
messages are developed and tested, advocates are ready to start shaping public
discourse. Although there are many ways to do this, one of the most effective
is through the media and the megaphones they represent. In this section, we
provide some ideas and tools for effectively broadcasting your ideas and using
the various media available to do so.

WORKING WITH REPORTERS
Reporters need sources to effectively do their jobs. Becoming a source for the reporters who reach
your target audience should become a goal of your communications plan. However, equally important is devising and implementing a strategy for sharing the messages you want included in the public dialogue. A few things to remember:
̈

Reporters need information and often do not have much time to find it. Making yourself and any reports, statistics, and spokespeople you have available on a regular basis
increases the chances that a reporter will turn to you for a story. However, it’s also important not
to bombard reporters with a series of non-newsworthy press releases. Save specific press materials for newsworthy events, but do familiarize reporters with the specific types of resources you
are able to offer them.

̈

Be a consumer of the media. To have a good idea of what might interest the media generally, or reporters you are targeting specifically, you need to be familiar not only with how your
issue is covered, but also with how various media outlets approach stories and specific reporters’
angles and preferences. USA Today covers stories differently than The Nation, for example, and

47

WORKING WITH REPORTERS

will often require a different angle, spokesperson, or news hook for a successful pitch. In addition, reporters like to know that those pitching them are familiar with their work and interests
and will appreciate a tailored approach.
̈

The goal is persuasion, not just publicity. Although earning publicity is an obvious and
crucial goal in any communications plan, it should not be at the expense of communicating the right
message. Reporters may be eager to cover aspects of your issue that preclude the broader point you
are trying to make, so it is important to evaluate requests carefully to ensure that you have at least
an opportunity to frame the story in a way that highlights the solutions you are seeking.

̈

Preparation is key. Before anyone in your organization talks to the media, make sure they
have undergone at least basic media training. Staying on message is not easy and requires practice. Anyone talking to the media also needs to have a basic set of points they want to make laid
out in front of them. For short interviews and for those who do not have ample experience with
the media, it’s a good idea to stick to three points that can be reiterated. Check the At a Glance
sections within each issue area of this toolkit for ideas about central points. Only those with
ample media experience should be sent to interviews that could turn hostile.

CHOOSING SPOKESPEOPLE
When you choose spokespersons to communicate a pro-human rights agenda, consider that they
don’t just speak a message—they also visually symbolize your frame and values. The messenger’s
identity is often just as important as the message—in some cases, a spokesperson personifies an issue.
As a result, a campaign’s cast of spokespersons should be diverse in terms of race, gender, class, and
other respects. The best spokesperson candidates are those with potential to attract and command
media attention; present a poised, confident, and persuasive image; and stay on message no matter
what is happening around them or what questions come at them. Once you’ve picked diverse and talented spokesperson candidates, devote time and other resources to refining their skills—you’ll find
them to be among your campaign’s top assets.
Spokespeople are very effective when they have a direct tie to a relevant issue. Audience members
often see legal advocates, social science scholars, and even those personally affected by human rights
violations as credible sources. An ideal situation is when a pool of spokespeople includes voices from
many such vantages. This assures reporters access to as many compelling spokespeople as possible,
allowing for effective reporting.

A Few Words of Caution
Spokespersons who tell personal stories about problems in their lives are often blamed by audiences
for causing their own problems. Communications consultant Doug Gould, after analyzing peoples’
reactions to various messages about poverty, concluded, “When people hear personal, emotional
stories about the working poor, they see the personal flaws of the individual that may have
contributed to the problem. ‘If he didn’t take drugs, or quit school, have a teenage mom, etc., he
wouldn’t be poor.’”
According to extensive opinion research carried out by Gould, advocates can’t rely on audiences’
sympathy. Instead, frames based on “responsible planning and economic values,” reinforced with
ideas about “teamwork and respect,” were found to be most successful in the poverty context. This
means choosing spokespeople based not only on their potential to make audiences feel sympathy, but
also on their ability to speak in terms of these larger frames. If you do choose to have spokespersons

48

tell their “hard times” stories, be sure that they bring them around to a discussion of the broader
institutional accountability for their problems so that audiences do not focus on their personal
imperfections.
In many organizations, the executive director and key staff are responsible for being spokespersons.
This is not always the best choice. Choose your spokespersons based on how appealing to and
effective with media they are, not based on their seniority.
Make your spokespeople easy to contact. Reporters, rushing against deadlines, often do not have time
to call a dozen different people looking for quotes. They tend to go with the designated spokesperson pitched to them. It is important to identify key spokespersons and make those individuals
as available as possible to reporters. We suggest giving key reporters cell phone numbers and email
addresses of your top spokespersons.
There are three kinds of spokespersons you might designate, based on the goals of your efforts:

1. Organizational Spokespersons
These spokespersons officially represent your group—they typically include your executive director,
key program staff, or board members. These spokespersons should be comfortable speaking to the
media and have a command of your organization’s messages and the issues you work on. They need
to be able to provide reliable, accurate, and timely information to reporters—or know where to get
it. Reporters may call these people at any time for a quote or background information. Make sure
members of the media know how and where to find these folks, including personal contact information, if possible.

2. Community Spokespersons
It is important to diversify your list of spokespersons so the same one or two people are not always
being quoted. This helps to ensure that the voice of people directly affected by the issue are included
in the media. Moreover, be mindful of all the kinds of diversity—racial, age, sexual orientation, class,
nationality, gender, and otherwise—that make up the rich texture of your communities and whether
those people are being groomed for the media. We encourage community spokespersons to speak at
press conferences, rallies, and other public events; write opinion-editorials; or appear on talk shows.
Community spokespersons represent “real people.” Their dramatic personal stories can be tremendously persuasive. Remember, do not always present community spokespersons with the intention
of provoking sympathy. Choose members of the affected community who can speak with authority,
who audiences will easily respect, and who can powerfully present the issue in terms of institutions
and broad themes, not just in terms of isolated negative personal impacts.

3. Other Voices
People not typically associated with your campaign can often validate your position with new audiences. They can also broaden the frame. For example, having law enforcement officers speak on
behalf of convicted juveniles seeking fair sentencing conveys a message of those regarded as “tough
on crime,” calling for reform that opponents might otherwise frame as being “soft on crime.”
Another example would be to have local leaders, such as fire fighters or schoolteachers, speak out
on abuses against immigrants. Understanding that scarcity of resources is a major anti-immigrant
theme, such spokespeople are seen as those personally affected by such scarcity, and allow audience
members to trust more fully the moral argument that the spokesperson is trying to convey. They also
serve as insurance against audiences’ tendency to blame victims when they hear sad stories from a
community.

49

CHOOSING SPOKESPEOPLE

Once you have identified your spokespersons, it is important to make sure they are able to speak on
message. It might be helpful to conduct practice interviews with each of your spokespeople, finding
where common themes intersect, and if your narrative can be heard in what they say. This could
help you strengthen your own talking points and begin to collect sound bites for press releases and
pitch letters that you will send to editors and reporters.
Remember, powerful journalism is rooted in powerful storytelling. People interviewed are like characters in a story. Therefore, the more spokespeople you have from diverse backgrounds, the more
characters the journalist has readily available when putting together the building blocks of the story.

PRESS RELEASES
Press releases are more than an opportunity to publicize an event or report. They are also messaging
vehicles. Although the main text of the release should be primarily factual, you have a lot of room
in the quotes you provide for elevating human rights.
Typically, press releases are written in the style of a basic news story. These feature the “who, what,
when, and where” of the story early in the copy. The “why” can be supplied in the form of a quote
from the spokesperson of your organization. This is also an important messaging opportunity.
Releases should be reasonably short and make the case for the newsworthiness of the story. Be sure
to include contact information on every page.

50

Sample Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [Name (email and phone)]
BREAKTHROUGH RELEASES RESTORE FAIRNESS VIDEO TO BRING BACK DUE PROCESS
TO BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM
Powerful New Video Urges U.S. Government to Uphold Human Rights in Immigration Policies
New York, NY (September 14, 2009)—Breakthrough (www.breakthrough.tv), an international human
rights organization, today released a powerful new video, Restore Fairness, to call for effective immigration reform that ensures American values like fairness and due process for all people in the United
States. To view the video, visit www.restorefairness.org.
Restore Fairness gives a human face to the harsh impact of current immigration laws on ordinary
families. One featured story is that of Ana Galindo and her husband Walter Chavez, legal permanent
residents with a 10-year-old U.S. citizen son who were raided (without a warrant) in their home by
armed immigration officers. Their young son now suffers from nightmares and lives in fear of the
police. These personal testimonies highlight the growing injustice that has emerged in post 9-11 policies which allow the government to arrest people without warrants, hold them in inhumane detention
conditions, and deport them without a fair trial.
The video also includes interviews with leading Congresswomen, such as Zoe Lofgren, Chair of
Subcommittee on Immigration and Lucille Roybal-Allard, Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. “Everybody in America under our Constitution is entitled to due
process of law and we’ve fallen short in the due process arena when it comes to the whole immigration system. If we’re not going to adhere to the basic standards that are in the Constitution, everybody
is at risk,” said Congresswoman Lofgren.

In this case, an important
value is embedded in the
campaign name, ensuring a
value focus in any coverage.
The release gets straight to
the point and makes it easy
for reporters to find the
resources they’ll need to
cover the story.
Providing a quick glimpse of
what kind of information
and stories reporters can
expect to find increases the
chances of follow-up.

A main spokesperson echoes
the values theme and highlights core recommended
messaging.

The Restore Fairness video was produced by Breakthrough in partnership with twenty- two leading
organizations and four advisors and is being distributed across the country as an education and
mobilization tool. The campaign website features additional videos, action steps, a blog, and resources
on due process and immigration policy.
About Breakthrough
Breakthrough is an innovative, international human rights organization using the power of popular
culture, media, and community education to transform public attitudes and advance equality, justice,
and dignity. Through initiatives in India and the United States, Breakthrough addresses critical global
issues including violence against women, sexuality and HIV/AIDS, racial justice, and immigrant rights.
For more information, visit www.breakthrough.tv
-###-

Make sure to include a
boilerplate outlining key
information about your
organization and where
reporters can go for more
information.
This symbol indicates the
end of the press release.

51

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the editor are a quick and effective way to weigh in on issues that the media frequently
cover. Often, more people read the letters page than the pages where the original article appeared,
so there is great potential for readership here. A few tips for writing successful letters:
̈

Referencing the original piece. Letters are typically a reaction to a specific article and
should reference it, including the author and title. However, sometimes headlines contain harmful frames and vocabulary that we would rather not repeat. In these cases, you can refer to the
story’s author and the date it ran.

̈

Thinking about length and focus. Letters need to be short and straight to the point and
shouldn’t exceed 150 words, which can be a challenge. Because of these limitations, and the
goal of getting your message across, it’s best to focus on one point you want to make about an
article, not try to refute or praise every piece of it.

̈

Setting the right tone. It’s important to be strategic about the tone of your letter. There are
certainly times when an angry letter is effective and called for. However, there are other situations in which a letter that sounds reasonable and measured is more likely to have an impact with
persuadable audiences. Picture average readers and gauge their likely knowledge of the issue
and write the letter with them in mind.

̈

Looking for opportunities. Almost any story can generate a letter to the editor. Finding the
angle can be a good exercise for staff and encourages both daily media consumption and the
generation of new messaging language. Most importantly, finding opportunities and submitting
letters obviously increases your chance of getting your messages into the paper.

The Value, Problem, Solution, Action formulation discussed in Section 1 and featured throughout this
toolkit can be an effective structure for creating an effective and succinct letter to the editor.

52

Sample Letter to the Editor
The following letter was submitted to The Washington Post and illustrates how writers can use available news hooks to transition to important points they seek to make. In this case, Catherine Powell
of the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda uses an international hook to draw
attention to the need for a human rights focus in domestic policy.

February 10, 2009
To the Editor:
Re: “Obama’s NSC Will Get New Power” (Karen DeYoung, Feb. 8)
We applaud National Security Advisor, James Jones, for his plans to expand the authority of the
National Security Council. We believe that part of the new mandate should include helping President
Obama restore U.S. moral leadership in the world by building human rights principles into the way the
government operates.
One way to do that is to support the creation of an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights. This
Working Group, established by President Bill Clinton and essentially dismantled by President George
W. Bush, would serve as a coordinating body among federal agencies and departments for the
promotion and respect of human rights and the implementation of human rights obligations in U.S.
domestic policy.
The moment is ripe to build human rights into the foundation of our government and restore America’s standing in the world.
Catherine Powell
Associate Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
Co-coordinator, Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda

Referencing the original
piece, as done here, can also
be a part of the body of
the letter.
The author uses a topical
news hook as an entry to the
point she wants to make
about broader human rights
issues. An alternative to
talking about restoring U.S.
leadership would be to link
human rights to our nation’s
founding principles.
The author offers concrete
solutions and ideas to underscore her point.
At 135 words, the short
length of this letter increases
its chances for publication.

53

OP-EDS

OP-EDS
Op-eds are your chance to speak through the news media directly to policymakers, your constituents,
and other target audiences. Papers will run op-eds from a range of sources, including experts, community voices, advocates, and those directly affected by issues. It is important for you to make the case
as to why your voice should be included, providing biographical information and credentials and a
persuasive argument about why your point of view is timely. A few tips for writing your piece follow:

Check the paper’s guidelines. Outlets usually include op-ed guidelines on their website,
including information about desired length and how to submit. It is important to follow these closely
to avoid the risk of rejection over technicalities or unwarranted editing due to length.

Structuring your piece. Op-eds need not be formulaic, but a certain familiar structure does
apply to most successful pieces.
̈

A punchy intro. Draw your reader in with a quick anecdote or metaphor that helps set the
stage for the point you want to make.

̈

A hook. Tie your piece to a current event, an emerging trend, or a historical milestone such as
an anniversary. The Value, Problem, Solution, Action formulation discussed in Section 1 and
featured throughout this toolkit can also be helpful in drafting a persuasive op-ed. Invoking
shared values and calling for concrete action are particularly important.

̈

A central thesis. State your central point clearly and focus all supporting evidence on further
illuminating it.

̈

Supporting evidence. The rule of threes applies here, with three compelling examples,
statistics, or anecdotes best supporting the thesis.

̈

Acknowledging the opposition. A good tactic in outlining your argument is to
acknowledge the main opposing argument to your point, thus addressing questions that may be
running through the reader’s mind. Sometimes called the “to be sure” paragraph, providing this
makes you appear to be reasonable and aware of the “other side,” while also giving you an
opportunity in the following paragraph to refute that particular line of reasoning.

̈

A snappy closing. Leave the reader with something to ponder while reiterating your point
one final time. It should be noted that the inclusion of forceful and creative introductions and
closings should not preclude your main point. If a metaphor is too difficult to follow, or an
anecdote focuses readers’ attention on its details, your point is likely to be lost.

54

Sample Op-Ed
In the following op-ed Sid Mohn of the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights uses
Human Rights Day to make the case for a domestic human rights focus. He draws on familiar American values to remind audiences that the human rights approach is central to our history and founding documents.
From: The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL), December 10, 2007

Address Human Rights Issues in Our Own Back Yard
For many of us, the mention of human rights evokes powerful images, like the tragic loss of life in
Sudan, or the brutal crackdown on Burmese monks. For others, it draws out deep cynicism about governments—our own and others.

An evocative introduction
draws readers in.

But what exactly does it mean for us here in the United States to celebrate an International Human
Rights Day? In an era marked by U.S. exceptionalism, it is certainly simpler for us to believe that
human rights are about issues we hear about from far across the globe: torture, unfair elections, genocide or repressive regimes.

The news hook here is the
celebration of Human
Rights Day. See the news
hook section of this toolkit
for more ideas.

But this is only a part of the human rights story. As we watched the city of New Orleans disrobed by
Katrina two years ago, revealing scars of deeply entrenched poverty and the fresh bruises of a blatantly ineffective government response, we knew that something had gone terribly wrong. In those
moments, we collectively understood that human rights were not just about other countries, but very
much about the issues in our own back yard.
Human rights are the very bedrock of our U.S. democracy. When our founders recognized that we all
have rights that no government should take away, including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”
they built a strong foundation for the United States. This was based in the belief that all persons should
be treated with dignity and fairness, creating a better society for all.
But these human rights are not just about freedom from the impact of war, conflict or violence. They
are as much about economic and social rights—the right to a livelihood, freedom from poverty, access
to health care and having a roof over your head. Human rights indeed connect to the hardships of
people on the west side of Chicago, in Galesburg or Rockford, working hard but struggling to make
ends meet.
Today, we have a critical opportunity in the U.S. to rediscover and realize human rights in our own
communities. But what exactly does adopting a more universal human rights perspective get us?
A refocus on human rights at home moves us away from the narrow agendas of special interest groups
and lets us begin to believe again in a larger vision for the United States.
It helps us transcend the “either this or that” mentality of a fragmented political system, one that pits
African-American issues against Latino concerns, job security against the environment, or something
we hear a lot about today in Illinois—transit against health, education or human services.

We know audiences are
drawn to links between U.S.
founding principles and
human rights. The author
emphasizes these and the
core values of dignity and
fairness.
It’s important to make
explicit links to domestic
issues. Key audiences agree
that these are human rights
issues, but this connection is
not top of mind for them.
This argument is
particularly effective for
social justice advocates
and activists looking for
intersectional issues.

Continued

55

OP-EDS

Adopting this outlook about human rights would also challenge the longstanding, futile debate
between conservatives and liberals about who is ultimately responsible for tackling society’s challenges
and ills, the individual or government?
Bringing a human rights perspective to the U.S. bridges this false divide, recognizing we face a huge
price of inaction as a nation and as individuals. It declares a basic standard of a responsible society,
propelling us out of political silos and demanding that we work collectively and more proactively
toward common goals. Ultimately, we must all be committed to achieving mutual rights through
mutual responsibility.
Today, we live in a globalized world where conventional boundaries no longer stand. The business
community has learned this, but the social and political sectors have not caught up. Conflict across the
world results in real need at home; last year alone, nearly 1,500 refugees, often carrying with them traumas of war or disaster and serious needs, sought safety in Illinois communities. They need more than
a coat to face the Midwestern winters or a chance at a job that does not come close to paying local
rents. In this changed world, a new vision of human rights would recognize that we are deeply interconnected and we can no longer afford to address the world’s problems separately.
It also allows us to combat claims of U.S. exceptionalism, now abundant in an information saturation
age where U.S. action and inaction—such as the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib—can be
seen instantly and repeatedly across the world. Adopting a human rights view in our own country
could push us from exceptionalism to exceptional, boosting our profile abroad and allowing us to be
a credible mentor to other regions of the world.
The environmental movement has made dramatic progress by thinking globally and acting locally,
turning the tables on old U.S. patterns of acting globally while overlooking our own back yard. We
must rethink human rights as well. Improving the well-being of all means bringing human rights back
home to the U.S. today.

56

The exceptionalism argument is likely to work best
with more progressive audiences, who are part of the
key groups the movement
will need to expand.

ONLINE STRATEGIES
Americans are increasingly getting their news and information online rather than from traditional
news outlets. According to a December 2008 Pew Research survey, the Internet is second only to
television as a source for national and international news. It is the top source for news on political
campaigns. Getting your voice into blogs and online outlets that reach your target audience is an
important and often overlooked strategy for human rights advocates.

Online Articles
The comments section in online articles is another great place for messaging. If you are able to post
on the first page of comments, you will reach a good proportion of those who have read the article
itself. It is important for these types of posts to be strategic, however, because it can be tempting only
to argue with other posters or refute specific facts within the article. One or two sentences that are
on message will begin to add up if you are able to implement this strategy regularly.
The following comments on a PBS site that featured a story on ending juvenile life without parole
sentences illustrate this strategy.11 The following first five comments are short and to the point and
could have been made by advocates or concerned citizens alike. However, the fifth comment, too long
to reproduce here, is from an advocate working on the other side of the issue. Its length decreases
the chances of anyone outside of the fight reading and internalizing it. It’s therefore important to
keep in mind your audience and the kind of information they can handle and to prioritize that in your
comments.
1/30/2009 : 08:00:22 PM alwayer Says:
This case is so hard to believe. Florida needs to end the practice of automatic certification for children
under 16—especially where it does not involve murder. Armed robbers have been reformed by juvenile systems for over a hundred years. There is no reason at all to put a 15 year old in the adult
system when there is a chance at reform.
01/31/2009 : 03:24:01 PM Mel Beckman Says:
An excellent story! It illustrates well why we are working for an end to juvenile life without parole
in Nebraska.
01/31/2009 : 06:48:32 PM concerned Says:
Please keep fighting for these kids. For “ALL” of the children who are forced to go through the adult
court and prison system. I strongly beleive what we do to these kids is truly barbaric, inhumane and
morally wrong this type of treatment desparately needs to stop. There is no excuse for us to force
children to be something they are clearly and factually not, they couldn’t be, act or even look like an
adult even if they wanted to. Shame on us “adults” who point fingers at children and want nothing
but vengeance!
02/01/2009 : 12:00:27 AM Theresa Yuricic Says:
This is such a huge issue that hurts our children. Children and not adults and are still capable of change
and growth. When Kenneth was 15 years old he made a childish mistake. I have met Kenneth, and he
is now a 23 year old man who understands this mistake. If the mothers of murdered children in MAMA
can find it in their hearts to forgive, why can’t the rest of us wake up and realize the mistake that is
made when we lock away a child for life and throw away the key?

11. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-30-2009/juvenile-life-without-parole/2081/

57

ONLINE STRATEGIES

Social Networking
Learn the ins and outs of using a social networking account for your cause. Both MySpace and Facebook, for instance, have opportunities for organizations to organize members or fans and to communicate with them. You can start a Facebook cause to publicize a campaign. Advertise it to members
and allies and then provide frequent updates, which will appear on their walls when they log in.
Advocates for youth sentencing reform in California have used Facebook in this manner and make
sure to infuse their online advocacy with the same consistent messaging as the rest of their campaign.
To see their campaign, go to the following link:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/282881/26414806

Blogs
Bloggers as reporters. Many bloggers view themselves as journalists and wish to be treated as
such. Thus, the strategy of creating and maintaining relationships applies here as well. It is particularly important in this case to do enough research to be familiar with a blogger’s interests and angle
so that you can provide the kind of information and arguments she or he is most likely to feature.
Becoming a blogger. Many organizations are launching their own blogs as a strategy for reaching their base audiences more immediately. For such a blog to be successful, it is important to have
predictably frequent posts, ideally each day, so that readers are drawn in consistently. Another
effective strategy is to cross-post your organization’s posts onto more widely read sympathetic blogs.
In the progressive blogosphere, for instance, outlets such as Daily Kos and MyDD allow for crossposts, which both increase your readership and link back to your original blog.

Tips When Blogging
̈

Keep it short. It’s simply the nature of the Internet that everything comes in shorter and
shorter bursts. This is to your benefit, too, because you only need to produce a couple of paragraphs. That’s not just sufficient but often preferable.

̈

Use hyperlinks. Link whenever possible. This doesn’t drive traffic away from your website
but instead makes it more likely that people will read your blog. Sharing useful information
makes your blog useful.

̈

Brainstorm ideas and write posts in advance. Even if you decide to post on a specific
schedule, you can still write the blog whenever you like. Save it and post it later. Blog traffic is
the highest Monday through Wednesday and Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST,
so it’s a good idea to have posts ready and available to go up before or during these times.

̈

Use pictures when possible, but be cognizant of copyright. Major media outlets
are picky about using their pictures elsewhere. Try Creative Commons (www.creativecommons.com) for photos you can use without specific permissions.

58

Sample Blog Post
The following excerpt is from a blog post that appeared in the online section of The Washington Post.11
The author makes the case for health as a right as opposed to a commodity and connects health care to
healthy democracy.
Guest Blogger: Dani Filc
The current discussion about health care reform in the United States sounds strange for anyone living
in a country with a public, universal, health care service. Indeed, it is difficult to consider a country that
does not guarantee its citizens universal access to health care as a true democracy.
For those who have no access to health care, basic principles like equality of opportunity are empty
slogans. You cannot be an active member of the political community if you are not healthy enough,
and although access to health care services is not the main contributor to health, still its importance is
undeniable.
Thus, health care cannot be considered as any other commodity, to be bought and sold in the free market. Rather, access to health care must be universal and guaranteed by the state.
This is the reason, as President Obama claimed, most democratic societies guarantee the right to health
care services. This is why for me the public option is actually a no brainer. Without it, one of the most
basic human rights, as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is denied.

11. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2009/09/health_care_lessons_from_israe.html?hpid=topnews

59

NEWS HOOK CALENDAR

NEWS HOOK CALENDAR
You can use this calendar as a planning tool for opportunities to talk about human rights. Connecting your press release or op-ed to a holiday or notable/historic date in a unique way can help it get
better coverage. You should add to this list events that have particular importance for your issue on
constituency.
APRIL

JANUARY

2:

1863: Emancipation Proclamation issued

4:

1968: Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated

1892: Ellis Island opens

7:

World Health Day

1945: Executive Order 9066 is rescinded, ending Japanese internment

8:

1935: Works Progress Administration
established by Congress, providing jobs and
income to millions during the Great Depression

10: 1946: United Nations General Assembly convenes for first time

11: 1968: Fair Housing Act enacted

15: Martin Luther King, Jr. was born

22: Earth Day

22: 1973: Roe v. Wade decided
MAY

Date Varies:
Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday: Observed on
the third Monday

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
1:

FEBRUARY
Black History Month

15: International Day of Families
17: 1954: Brown v. Board of Education decision
1996: Romer v. Evans decided by the Supreme
Court, ruling against an amendment to the
Colorado Constitution that allowed
discrimination against gays and lesbians

12: Lincoln’s birthday; the NAACP is founded,
25: 1870: Hiram Revels first African American
sworn in as a U.S. Senator

6:

8:

International Workers’ Day

MARCH

JUNE

Women’s History Month

Gay Pride Month

1857: Dred Scott case decided by the Supreme
Court, ruling that people of African descent
could not be U.S. citizens, whether they were
slaves or free
International Women’s Day

30: 1870: 15th Amendment is adopted,
guaranteeing voting rights regardless of race
31: 1927: Birthday of Cesar Chavez

1:

International Children’s Day

2:

1924: Indian Citizenship Act guarantees full
citizenship to Native Americans

13: 1967: Thurgood Marshall becomes first African
American Supreme Court Justice
19: Juneteenth Day, commemorating the abolition
of slavery
23: 1972: Title XI prohibits gender discrimination
in schools
25: 1938: Fair Labor Standards Act establishes a
minimum wage, guarantees time-and-a-half for
overtime, and prohibits child labor
28: 1969: Stonewall Rebellion helps to spark the
gay rights movement

60

2:

JULY

NOVEMBER

1964: Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin

American Indian Heritage Month

26: 1990: The Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibits discrimination based on disability

AUGUST
7:

Transgender International Rights and
Education Day

9:

Day Against Racism

16: International Day for Tolerance
20: Universal Children’s Day
20: Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted
by U.N. General Assembly
25: International Day for the Elimination of
Violence Against Women
Date Varies:
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day

14: 1935: Social Security Act enacted
18: 1920: 19th Amendment recognizes women’s
right to vote

DECEMBER
SEPTEMBER
Hispanic Heritage Month runs Sept. 15–Oct. 15
21: International Day of Peace

1:

World AIDS Day

3:

International Day of Disabled Persons

25: 1981: Sandra Day O’Connor becomes the first
woman Supreme Court Justice

10: 1948: Human Rights Day, commemorating
the adoption of the United Nations’ Universal
Declaration of Human Rights

30: 1962: The National Farm Workers Association
is founded

15: 1791: Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the
Constitution) are ratified

OCTOBER
2:

International Day of Non-Violence

11: National Coming Out Day
16: World Food Day
17: International Day for the Eradication of Poverty
25: United Nations Day
Date Varies:
Columbus Day, also celebrated as Indigenous
Peoples’ Day, International Day of Solidarity
with Indigenous People, and Dia de la Raza

16: 1966: International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are
both signed
18: 1865: 13th Amendment is ratified, abolishing
slavery in the United States
18: 1979: Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women
adopted by U.N. General Assembly.
21: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination Adopted by U.N. General
Assembly.

61

Public Opinion
Research on
Human Rights
in the United
States
Overview of Research Components: This toolkit is based, in part, on a
three-year public opinion research project comprised of both quantitative and
qualitative methods. In it we examined, with our research partners Belden
Russonello & Stewart and Loren Siegel, how several key audiences viewed
human rights in the United States as applied to social justice issues. Audiences
included social justice advocates not currently using the human rights
approach, state-level policymakers, persuadable segments of the public, and
the general population. Their opinions were examined through a range of
research strategies described in the following. Full reports on each phase of
research are available at www.opportunityagenda.org or by emailing
partners@opportunityagenda.org.

63

PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

RESEARCH SUMMARIES
2007 FOCUS GROUPS AND SURVEY
This research 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. The survey was offered in Spanish and English, and Asian Americans were “over
sampled” to ensure their representative participation.
̈

Americans see a recognition of human rights as a sign that the United States has not forgotten
its founding principles. Americans value human rights because they believe in treating individuals with fairness, but they also tell us that respecting human rights contributes to a better
society for all—a sentiment that suggests that honoring human rights for others makes life
better for oneself.

̈

Americans agree that “every person has basic rights regardless of whether their government recognizes those rights or not” (80% agree; 62% strongly).

̈

Americans agree “we should strive to uphold human rights in the U.S. because there are people
being denied their human rights in our country” (81%).

̈

Perceptions of the role of government complicate views on human rights. Many Americans
believe that the government should be a provider of human rights, expanding government programs to ensure these rights. However, a strong belief in personal responsibility leads others to
argue that government should only be expected to protect human rights.

̈

The public is poorly informed and holds ambivalent views on the relevance of international
treaties for U.S. policymaking: 46% believe that the United States should not sign and follow
international human rights treaties because “it would violate our sovereignty and our government’s right to protect our interests.”

For the full report, please see Human Rights in the U.S.: Opinion Research with Advocates,
Journalists, and the General Public.
http://opportunityagenda.org/human_rights_report_2007

64

Americans agree that the following
are human rights:

somewhat
or strongly

strongly

Equal opportunities regardless of gender

95%

86%

Equal opportunities regardless of race

94%

85%

Being treated fairly in the criminal
justice system

95%

83%

Freedom from discrimination

94%

83%

Freedom from torture or abuse by
law enforcement

91%

83%

Equal access to quality public education

93%

82%

Access to health care

89%

72%

Living in a clean environment

85%

68%

To a slightly lesser degree, Americans
believe the following should
be considered human rights:

somewhat
or strongly

strongly

Equal opportunities regardless of whether
you are gay or lesbian

79%

57%

Freedom from extreme poverty

78%

52%

Adequate housing

77%

51%

Ensuring economic opportunity

77%

47%

Abortion

64%

40%

Americans agree that the following are
human rights violations:

agree

strongly

Racial profiling

84%

70%

Lack of quality education for children
in poor communities is a violation of
human rights

81%

62%

Torture of terrorist suspects

67%

43%

Treatment of residents of New Orleans
after Hurricane Katrina

60%

41%

BUT only half the public (49%) agree that “the human rights of illegal immigrants
in the U.S. are violated when they are denied access to medical care”.

65

PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES INTERVIEWS
AND SURVEY
Six moderated discussion groups were held in Atlanta, Chicago, and Minneapolis with local social
justice advocates. 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 a later online survey of more than 600 social
justice advocates.
The social justice advocates interviewed were also receptive to the notion of human rights, although
they were 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. The reports
on this research provide several recommendations for addressing these barriers.
For the full report, please see Human Rights in the U.S.: Opinion Research with Advocates,
Journalists, and the General Public.
http://opportunityagenda.org/human_rights_report_2007

POLICYMAKER INTERVIEWS
These interviews with 50 state-level policymakers and opinion leaders in California and Illinois
sought to uncover decision makers’ views of human rights as applied to domestic issues and to find
opportunities for using a human rights framework effectively with them.
̈

Some social justice issues, including racial equality and due process, are already considered
human rights by state-level leaders in California and Illinois.

̈

BUT areas such as freedom from poverty and access to health care are harder places to find
agreement.

̈

These policy leaders are wary of framing many social justice issues as human rights because of
the potentially far-reaching implications of calling something a human right and of their own limitations in fulfilling the promise of that designation. Many believe they cannot protect and
fulfill all the needs that are suggested by an expansive view of human rights; and some do not
want to fulfill all of them.

For the full report, please see State Policy Leaders’ Views on Social Justice and Human Rights.
http://opportunityagenda.org/state_policy_makers_report

2009 MESSAGE TESTING FOCUS GROUPS
These 16 focus groups in Atlanta; Chicago; Columbus, OH; Houston; New York City; South San
Francisco; and Santa Monica, CA examined key public audiences’ attitudes toward five social
justice issues—immigration, health care, due process, life without parole for young people, and racial
justice—within the context of human rights.
Findings on specific issues are available in the full report at www.opportunityagenda.org.
̈

66

Audiences say that human rights are the rights you have by virtue of being born. Participants
frequently volunteered a number of examples of human rights: equality; freedom from discrimination; freedom from torture; and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

̈

However, when audiences begin to distinguish between rights that are protected—freedom from
torture, freedom of speech, etc.—from rights that are provided—health care, education, etc.—there
is some hesitation about calling the latter human rights. Participants begin to worry about the
appropriateness and feasibility of government providing these rights to everyone in the country.

̈

There remains concern about the role of personal responsibility. If issues are classified as human
rights concerns, participants question whether the right should be upheld for all people, even
those who they believe do not contribute to society or who have broken society’s rules.

For more on this research, please go to our website at http://opportunityagenda.org/public_opinion_research_2009. For the full report, How To Discuss Specific Social Justice Issues Within A
Human Rights Framework, please email partners@opportunityagenda.org.

Select Human
Rights Resources
General and Cross-Issue Resources
Publications
Bringing Human Rights Home (Cathy Albisa, Martha Davis, and Cynthia Soohoo, 2007)
A wide-ranging three-volume publication chronicling the human rights movement in the United States produced by activists and scholars, this series includes A History of Human Rights in the United States, From Civil Rights to Human
Rights, and Portraits of the Movement. You can order the volumes through the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative website.
www.nesri.org/Bringing_Human_Rights_Home.pdf?sku=C8821
Close to Home: Case Studies of Human Rights Work in the United States (Ford Foundation, 2004)
This report examines the work of U.S. organizations using traditional human rights tools-such as fact-finding, litigation, organizing, and advocacy to reduce poverty, promote workers' rights and environmental justice, abolish the death penalty, and
end discrimination. It is available online at Ford Foundation's website.
www.fordfound.org/pdfs/impact/close_to_home.pdf
Human Rights at Home: A Domestic Policy Blueprint for the New Administration (Catherine Powell, 2008)
The Blueprint lays out a series of recommendations for ensuring that the federal government will honor the United States’
commitment to human rights in U.S. domestic policy. It points to the relevance of human rights principles to domestic
issues such as inequalities in access to housing, education, jobs, and health care; the application of the death penalty; and
the prohibition of torture. The Blueprint is one of a series of papers released by the American Constitution Society on “A
Fresh Start for a New Administration,” available on their website.
www.acslaw.org/lawandjustice
Public Opinion: Human Rights in the United States (The Opportunity Agenda, 2007)
This research project examines the opinion of three key audiences on human rights in the United States 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.
http://opportunityagenda.org/human_rights_report_2007

67

SELECT HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCES

Something So Strong: A Resource Guide on Human Rights in the US (US Human Rights Network, 2003)
This resource guide is meant to serve as a starter kit for a movement for human rights in the United States. The framework
and tools included emerged from the insights and activism generated by the Second Leadership Summit on Human Rights
in the United States in July 2002.
www.ushrnetwork.org/files/ushrn/images/linkfiles/Something_Inside_So_Strong.pdf
The State of Opportunity in America (2009) (The Opportunity Agenda, 2009)
The State of Opportunity in America (2009) documents America’s progress in protecting opportunity for everyone who
lives here, with an emphasis on economic and social rights. By analyzing government data across a range of indicators, this
update of 2006 and 2007 reports assesses the state of opportunity for our nation as a whole and for different groups within
our society.
http://opportunityagenda.org/stateofopportunity
State Policy Leaders’ Views on Human Rights in the U.S. (The Opportunity Agenda, 2008)
This analysis of interviews in California and Illinois addresses how 50 policy leaders see human rights issues at the state level.
Although health care, racial justice, due process, and economic justice are subjects of conversations on human rights at the
national level, much of the policymaking and action on these issues occur at the state level. This publication offers insight
into decision makers’ openness to a human rights approach.
http://opportunityagenda.org/state_policy_makers_report

Multimedia Resources
1000 Voices Archive
This curated national collection of videos features stories created by filmmakers and communities across the country. Videos
span social justice and human rights issues and are accompanied by fact sheets and other resources that can help promote
informed dialogue at schools, faith gatherings, and policy meetings.
www.1000voicesarchive.org/
The Hub
Witness’s participatory media site for human rights allows individuals, organizations, networks, and groups around the
world to upload videos, audio, or photos and watch, comment on, and share what’s on the site.
hub.witness.org/
Military Leaders Speak Out Against Torture
This Human Rights First video illustrates how using a values framework and unexpected messengers can tell a powerful
human rights story. In it, retired generals denounce the use of torture as contrary to American values and call for an end to
the practice.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Nky_PR1c&feature=channel_page
No Retreat, No Compromise Podcast Series
Produced by the US Human Rights Network, this bi-weekly podcast seeks to “inform, educate and arouse the fight for justice in the United States.” On the website, activists can create audio and video content that their members and/or constituents can listen to or watch when they want and get more information on the issues their work addresses.
http://ushrnetwork.podOmatic.com/
Youth For Human Rights International Public Service Announcements
This series of ads brings to life the 30 articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Released in
2005, the ads are all available on the Youth for Human Rights website.
www.youthforhumanrights.org/index.htm

Legal Resources
Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute
Founded in 1998, the Human Rights Institute serves as the focal point of international human rights education, scholarship, and practice at Columbia Law School. The Institute fosters the development of a comprehensive human rights curriculum and strives to build bridges between theory and practice, between law and other disciplines, and between
constitutional rights and international human rights.
www.law.columbia.edu/center_program/human_rights

68

Human Rights in State Courts (The Opportunity Agenda, 2007, 2008)
This report details the ways in which state courts have considered and interpreted international human rights law. It is
intended for public interest lawyers, state court litigators, judges, and state and municipal policymakers interested in
integrating compliance with international human rights law into their domestic policies.
http://opportunityagenda.org/report_state_courts_and_human_rights_2008_edition
Human Rights, Social Justice, and State Law (2008): A Manual for Creative Lawyering
This manual is part of a training initiative for social justice lawyers working at the state level, launched by the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, and Northeastern Law School’s
Rights in the Global Economy Program.
www.nesri.org/fact_sheets_pubs/legal_training%20_manual.pdf

International Treaties, Laws, and Mechanisms
Core International Human Rights Instruments and Monitoring Bodies
Each of the nine core international human rights treaties has established a committee of experts to monitor implementation
of the treaty provisions by its state’s parties. Full text to the treaties and other resources are available on at the OHCHR
website.
www2.ohchr.org/english/law/
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which the United States helped to draft. The full text is available on the United Nations website.
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Toolkits
US Human Rights Network Resource List
This list includes training manuals and toolkits for a range of human rights issues.
www.ushrnetwork.org/resource_organizer_toolkit

Issue-Specific Resources
Health As a Human Right
Amnesty International USA Health Work and Petition
Amnesty International USA is working on the human right to health care in the United States as part of the Health Care is
a Human Right Coalition, in collaboration with the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, the National Health
Law Program, and The Opportunity Agenda. The program page links to resources and publications and a petition
underscoring the importance of approaching health care as a human right.
www.amnestyusa.org/demand-dignity/health-care-is-a-human-right/page.do?id=1021216
Center for Reproductive Rights Resources
This site is a source of free, downloadable information on reproductive rights law and policy. Among its offerings are publications and videos, a legal glossary, and a Human Rights Primer.
http://reproductiverights.org/en/resources
Montana Voices for Health Care as a Human Right
This series of short videos features Montana residents talking about their experiences in the health care system. The
National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, the Montana Human Rights Network, and WEEL Empowers partnered
with Creative Counsel and their 1000 Voices Archive to create this video series highlighting stories about the human right
to health in Montana.
www.nesri.org/programs/health_speaking_out.html

69

SELECT HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCES

National Economic and Social Rights Initiative Right to Health Program
This program works with health advocates to develop a human rights approach to protecting health and ensuring access
to adequate health care for all people in the United States. To do this, it focuses on advancing a human rights approach for
reforming the systems for financing and delivering health care. The program works with community partners
and other health advocates to generate human rights documentation, analysis, advocacy, public education materials, and
workshops.
www.nesri.org/programs/health.html
Voices of the Vermont Health Care Crisis (Vermont Workers’ Center, 2008)
This report was compiled from personal interview surveys conducted with more than 1,200 Vermonters and human rights
hearings held across the state. It found that more than 95% of Vermonters believe health care should be a human right.
www.workerscenter.org/healthcare-report

Due Process and Detention
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Resources
The ACLU works on a range of due process and detention issues, particularly as they pertain to immigrants and terror suspects. Their resource pages include links to publications, fact sheets, legislation, court cases, and press releases.
ACLU resources on due process for immigrants
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/index.html
ACLU resources on due process for terror suspects
www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/index.html
Restoring Fairness Campaign and Video
This campaign comprises a take-action website and documentary and calls on the U.S. government to restore due process
and fairness to the immigration system.
www.restorefairness.org/
Rights Working Group and Detention Watch Network Publications
These organizations have compiled a range of reports on detention, due process, special populations, and enforcement.
www.rightsworkinggroup.org/?q=DetentionReports

Ending the Practice of Sentencing Youth to Life Without the Possibility of Parole
Frontline Interactive Map
This map tracks, state-by-state, the number of inmates serving life without parole for crimes they committed as youth, as
compiled by Human Rights Watch as of 2009. Visitors to the site can scroll over each state to see the number of youth sentenced to life without parole, the lowest age at which a juvenile offender is eligible for life without parole in that state, and
whether life without parole is a mandatory sentence for certain crimes in that state.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/whenkidsgetlife/etc/map.html
National Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth
This campaign is dedicated to reducing and abolishing the sentencing of any person younger than age 18 years to life without the possibility of parole. There are currently 15 state-based campaigns that work with this national campaign to fulfill
its goal to require meaningful reviews of all life sentences imposed on youth. These campaigns are led by advocacy organizations, legal professionals, and family members of people serving life without parole for crimes committed in
their youth.
www.endjlwop.org
The Rest of Their Lives (Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch, 2005)
This report contains a national analysis of life without parole sentences for children, including statistics on numbers sentenced by state and percentage of those sentenced for first-time offenses.
www.amnestyusa.org/us/clwop/report.pdf

70

Racial Profiling
ACLU Campaign Against Racial Profiling
This campaign fights law enforcement and private security practices that disproportionately target people of color and
Muslims for investigation and enforcement. Their work encompasses initiatives in public education, including the
creation of a film, a “Know Your Rights” brochure, and a fact sheet on Highlights in the Fight Against Racial Profiling.
ACLU advocacy also includes lobbying for the passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigation of
airline and highway profiling cases.
www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/racialjustice/index.html
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the NYU School of Law
In its work to end human rights abuses in global counter-terrorism, the Center addresses disparate impacts on particular
communities, both within and outside of the United States. Two of the Center's recent reports highlight the problematic use
of such profiling in the context of "shoot-to-kill" policies and in security checks for U.S. naturalization applications. The
Center is currently producing a documentary based on its report on citizenship delays.
www.chrgj.org/projects/profiling.html
Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center at Northeastern University
This site is designed to be a central clearinghouse for police agencies, legislators, community leaders, social scientists, legal
researchers, and journalists to access information about current data collection efforts, legislation and model policies,
police–community initiatives, and methodological tools that can be used to collect and analyze data. The website contains
information on the background of data collection, jurisdictions currently collecting data, community groups, legislation
that is pending and enacted in states across the country, and information on planning and implementing data collection procedures, training officers in to implement these systems, and analyzing and reporting the data and results.
www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/
Rights Working Group Face the Truth Campaign
The goals of the Face the Truth campaign is to achieve commitments at all levels of government to ban all forms of racial
and religious profiling by law enforcement.
www.rightsworkinggroup.org/?q=FaceTheTruthCampaign

Immigration Resources
(See the Due Process resource section for immigrant due process and detention resources.)
America’s Voice
The mission of America’s Voice is to realize the promise of workable and humane comprehensive immigration reform. They
work to build the public support and create the political momentum for reforms that will transform an immigration system that does not work into a regulatory system that does. To achieve this vision, America’s Voice speaks directly to key
audiences through the mainstream, new, and Spanish-language media and conducts public opinion research, communications, and online campaigns.
www.americasvoiceonline.org/pages/about_americas_voice/
Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM)
A project of the Center for Community Change, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement is a national coalition of grassroots organizations working for immigrant rights at the local, state, and federal level. Their site includes general information on immigration issues, comprehensive immigration reform including FIRM's principles for reform, the detention and
deportation of immigrants in our communities, and state campaigns for immigration reform.
www.communitychange.org/our-projects/firm
National Immigration Forum
Established in 1982, the National Immigration Forum’s mission is to advocate for the value of immigrants and immigration to the nation. The Forum uses its communications, advocacy, and policy expertise to create a vision, consensus, and
strategy that lead to a better, more welcoming America—one that treats all newcomers fairly. The Forum also works to knit
together alliances across diverse faith, labor, immigrant, nonimmigrant ,and business constituencies in communities across
the country. These alliances come together under the Forum’s leadership to develop, execute, and evaluate legislative and
administrative advocacy strategies.
www.immigrationforum.org/about

71

Conclusion
We hope that this toolkit has been helpful in guiding your thinking
about human rights communications. There is much room to grow public
understanding of human rights domestically, and we hope that this foundation
of research and recommendations helps to guide this growth.
It is a work in progress, and we will continue to develop and hone our
messaging recommendations. We’d like your help in this process and
encourage you to contact us at partners@opportunityagenda.org to share
your thoughts, feedback, and experiences for incorporation in to future tools.

72

Building the National Will
to Expand Opportunity in America

The Opportunity Agenda
568 Broadway
Suite 302
New York, NY 10012
Tel: 212.334.5977
Fax: 212.334.2656
www.opportunityagenda.org

The Opportunity Agenda is a project of Tides Center.