Menu

A Systems-Thinking Approach to Digital Accessibility as a Human Right in Higher Education

, , 0

Introduction The expansion of digital platforms for accessing public services has made equal digital access a practical and ethical necessity. In response, the 2024 ADA Title II Web and Mobile Application Accessibility Rule mandates that state and local governments—as well as businesses and organizations that either do business with or receive funding from the federal government—comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards for websites and mobile applications. Public and private universities, which are governed by states or receive federal funds, fall under the scope of this rule. However, the specific obligations for educational institutions remain unclear, given the distinctive roles, functions, and complexities of research and teaching environments. Nonetheless, many universities have launched Digital Accessibility Initiatives (DAI) to demonstrate progress toward compliance, often prioritizing surface-level technical adjustments rather than substantive inclusion. This essay argues that digital accessibility is not merely a technical or administrative requirement, but a fundamental human-rights obligation rooted in dignity and equitable participation. Drawing on principles of systems thinking, the essay examines how isolated, metrics-driven interventions can mislead students, burden faculty, and undermine the ethical purpose of accessibility policy. The analysis proposes a more holistic and transparent model—one in which universities acknowledge discipline-specific limitations, use nuanced course-tagging practices, and commit to pedagogically equivalent alternatives that foster genuine inclusion. The essay stresses the need to distinguish between compliance-oriented measures and true accessibility interventions, which require significant institutional investment and systemic coordination far beyond superficial technical tweaks.   The Pitfalls of Compliance-Driven Academic Practices Digital accessibility initiatives have multiplied […]

More

Behind the Throne

, , , , 0

Wealth, Power, the State, and Human Rights Introduction This article examines the enduring and often misunderstood relationship between private wealth and political power, using the 2025 inauguration of President Donald Trump as a symbolic point of departure. The image of the world’s richest individuals standing behind the President reveals a timeless political truth: wealth may influence, but only the State truly governs. The essay argues that while modern billionaires such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg are frequently portrayed as the most powerful figures of the age, their fortunes remain contingent on the authority, stability, and legal frameworks of the State. Drawing on historical precedents—from medieval Europe to Ibn Khaldun’s reflections on wealth and vulnerability—it traces how economic elites have always sought the protection of political power, even as they attempt to insulate themselves from it. In the modern global economy, extreme wealth is shown to be inseparable from state-created systems of law, finance, and regulation. The article distinguishes between influence—the capacity to shape outcomes indirectly—and power—the ability to command obedience through coercion and law—and argues that conflating the two obscures the real hierarchy that governs society. Furthermore, it explores how fear of change and loss of privilege drives both political conservatism and elite resistance to reform, even as the State remains the only institution capable of advancing equity and human rights. Ultimately, “Behind the Throne” contends that the image of the wealthy standing behind political authority is more than metaphor: it captures the paradox of modern capitalism […]

More

Unprecedented Decision–the United States refuses to review its human rights record

, , 0

In a move with profound implications for the international human rights architecture, the United States has formally boycotted its scheduled Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva—marking only the second instance in the history of the UPR mechanism (established in 2008) that a state has refused to participate in its own peer review. This unprecedented decision—confirmed by the U.S. Mission in Geneva and enacted under President Donald Trump’s renewed administration—represents not merely procedural noncompliance, but a deliberate recalibration of U.S. foreign policy that positions human rights norms as dispensable instruments of diplomacy rather than binding obligations of governance. The UPR, a cornerstone of multilateral human rights accountability, mandates that all 193 UN member states undergo peer scrutiny of their domestic rights records every four to five years. Its design embodies the principle of equality of obligation: regardless of geopolitical stature, every state submits to the same process of reporting, questioning, and recommendation. The U.S., long a vocal proponent—indeed, frequent enforcer—of this very system, now stands in open defiance of it. As one former senior U.S. official observed, with poignant irony: “It’s tragic and deeply ironic that we helped to create the norms as well as this process that we are now backing out of.” This refusal to report is especially striking given historical precedent. During Trump’s first term, the United States withdrew from the Human Rights Council in 2018, citing perceived anti-Israel bias—a claim repeatedly challenged by legal scholars and UN rapporteurs alike—but […]

More

The Principle of Change–The Pulse of Life in Systems Thinking

, 0

On Change Change is often misunderstood as the enemy of stability—a force that disrupts order, tradition, and social cohesion. Yet this notion is fundamentally mistaken. The world exists because it is driven by change. Change is not the adversary of stability but its precondition, the pulse of life that animates the universe. In the framework of systems thinking, change represents the continuous process of adaptation through which systems maintain viability and coherence in the face of internal and external pressures. Every stable system is not static but dynamic, sustained by feedback loops that balance renewal and continuity.   We witness the vitality of change in the natural world every moment of our lives. From the instant a person wakes, they embark on a journey of transformation. It may appear like yesterday, yet physiologically and psychologically, it is not. Every heartbeat, every breath, every shifting thought registers a new state. Cells die and regenerate; the seasons turn; stars are born and extinguished. Nature itself demonstrates that stability is not the absence of change but its product—a pattern sustained through perpetual adaptation. As Capra (1996) observes, living systems exist “at the edge of chaos,” where order emerges not through stillness but through self-organizing processes of transformation. On Change and Human Rights The same principle applies to human societies. Social systems, like ecosystems, depend on dynamic equilibrium. Policies, norms, and institutions must evolve in response to new realities, moral insights, and environmental constraints. In relation to human rights, it is through change that […]

More

Introducing Human Rights and Rights

0

Human Rights as Complexity-Driven Humility   Introduction Human rights are often treated as the domain of law, political science, or international relations, yet no single academic or professional discipline can claim exclusive authority over them. To confine human rights to one field is to diminish their scope and complexity. The principles that sustain human rights—dignity, justice, equality, and responsibility—permeate every aspect of human life and thought, from ethics and economics to education, public health, and environmental stewardship. Understanding human rights therefore demands a systems thinking approach that recognizes how these norms are shaped by and expressed through culture, society, and ecology. Moreover, an expanded conception of rights must extend beyond the human, acknowledging the interdependence between human wellbeing and the wellbeing of the natural world. Protecting the environment, animals, existing beings and ecosystems is not merely an adjacent cause but a continuation of the same moral logic that grounds human rights. In this broader view, safeguarding the integrity of life in all its forms ultimately reinforces the conditions under which human dignity can flourish. Nonetheless, human rights norms represent one of the most powerful moral and legal achievements of the modern world. They embody humanity’s collective conviction that every person possesses inherent dignity and deserves freedom, equality, and justice. Yet these norms are not static principles engraved in law. They are living ideas that have evolved through ethical reasoning, social struggle, and international consensus. Understanding human rights, therefore, requires examining them as ethical imperatives, as legal frameworks, and as social […]

More

The Boy Who Cried Human Rights

0

Once upon a time, there was a powerful boy named America who stood at the edge of the world and cried, “Human rights! Human rights!” And the world listened. He marched against dictators, helped rebuild nations after war, and spoke boldly at the United Nations about justice, freedom, and equality. When villages far away were crushed by tyranny, the boy sent food, medicine, and even soldiers, claiming to stand for what was right. He helped end apartheid in South Africa, stood up to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and told the world that no one was above human dignity. So, when he spoke, people believed him. They looked to him not just for power, but for moral guidance — for courage in the face of cruelty. But one day, the wolf came. It came not from the forests of Europe or the deserts of Africa, but from the skies over Gaza. It came in the form of missiles, airstrikes, and blockades that swallowed entire families. The villagers cried out — their homes turned to rubble, their children buried beneath it — and they looked to the boy who had promised that freedom and justice belonged to everyone. America saw the flames. He saw the hospitals hit, the aid convoys stopped, the suffering broadcast to the world. But instead of rushing to protect the innocent, he hesitated. He looked at his oldest friend — Israel — the wolf dressed in familiar colors. He remembered shared weapons, shared votes, shared history. And […]

More

Nations’ Borrowing from the Future Betrays the Basic Norms of Rights

, 0

Abstract: National debt is often framed as an economic necessity—a tool for growth, stability, and strategic investment. Yet history reveals that debt has also been a recurring instrument of decline, eroding empires, undermining sovereignty, and transferring the cost of ambition onto future generations. This essay argues that public debt must be understood not only in fiscal terms but as a profound human rights issue. When states borrow beyond their means, they bind people who do not yet exist to obligations they never consented to—effectively transforming unborn generations into economic subjects without voice or agency. Drawing on historical examples and contemporary data from the world’s most indebted nations, the essay traces how unsustainable borrowing constrains development, deepens inequality, and compromises the capacity of future societies to uphold basic human dignity. It calls for a reimagining of fiscal responsibility as moral responsibility: a recognition that debt, when misused, is not just a financial burden but a form of intergenerational injustice—a silent exploitation of the future by the present. Throughout history, national debt has been both a tool of power and a moral test. Empires and states have borrowed to build roads, wage wars, and fund revolutions—but also to delay responsibility, to push the burden of today’s ambitions onto tomorrow’s citizens. When governments treat debt as an instrument of control or a source of artificial prosperity, they are not merely taking on financial obligations. They are borrowing against time, against the lives and possibilities of people not yet born. In that sense, debt […]

More

From Bookstore to Empire: The Case of Amazon

, , 0

Hoarding and Human Rights  Introduction This essay examines the distinction between the creation and transfer of wealth through the lens of Amazon’s business model and its broader implications for economic ethics and human rights. It argues that legitimate wealth arises through two primary paths: the production of goods and services, or their distribution through trade and commerce. While Amazon has built its global dominance through the latter, its success depends largely on the labor, creativity, and productivity of others. By profiting from the margins of others’ work rather than creating value in itself, Amazon exemplifies a system in which wealth is redistributed upward rather than newly generated. The essay contends that this economic model, while efficient, raises profound moral and human rights concerns—particularly regarding the fair valuation of labor, the dignity of workers, and the equitable distribution of the fruits of human toil. In questioning Amazon’s claims to “create” jobs or wealth, the essay calls for a reexamination of how modern economies measure value, justice, and the rights of those whose labor sustains them. First, Data and Statistics Amazon frequently defends itself against criticism of harsh labor practices by pointing to two achievements: the vast number of jobs it creates and the wealth it has generated as a trillion-dollar company. Both claims are technically true, but they conceal more than they reveal about who actually benefits from Amazon’s growth. Today, Amazon is one of the largest employers on Earth, with roughly 1.55 million workers worldwide. When the company highlights job […]

More

The First Step to Genocide Is a Word

, 0

The Way Dehumanization Paves the Path to Atrocity Every genocide and every crime against humanity is rooted in one deliberate act: the dehumanization of its victims. Study any instance of genocide, mass atrocity, war crime, or systematic violence—and you will find a consistent, chilling pattern. Before the violence begins, a narrative is constructed to justify it; as it unfolds, that same narrative legitimizes it; and once it ends, the narrative whitewashes it. At the heart of this process lies the dehumanization of the targeted group. We saw this in Syria, where supremacist factions used explicit, degrading language to label religious, ethnic, and secular communities as subhuman. They fabricated stories of atrocities allegedly committed by these groups, framing their own brutal campaigns as “self-defense” or “retribution.” Even the most mundane actions by members of the targeted communities were twisted into evidence of sinister, premeditated aggression—conveniently justifying future acts of mass violence as necessary retaliation. More recently, Israeli leaders—preparing for what would become one of the most extreme asymmetrical wars in modern history—began dehumanizing Palestinians as early as October 8, 2023, calling them “human animals.” Ancient biblical rhetoric was invoked to rationalize the killing of children (Amalek), while labels like “terrorism” and “antisemitism” were weaponized to mobilize public support and shield actions now widely described by credible human rights organizations and scholars as genocidal. Ending the violence in Gaza will not extinguish the deeper impulse that makes such atrocities possible: the reflexive, self-serving belief that some lives are less human than others. […]

More

The Foundation of All Rights

0

Freedom of Speech Abstract Freedom of speech, thought, and conscience constitute the cornerstone of all human rights. Without the capacity to articulate claims, challenge authority, and bring grievances into the public sphere, other rights remain inaccessible and unenforceable. Drawing on the ideas presented in Muslims and the Western Conception of  Rights , this essay argues that freedom of speech must be understood relationally, within the dynamics of power. The protection of vulnerable voices is paramount, while the claims of those with systemic power must be subject to limitation. Historical precedents demonstrate that transformative change has been initiated by the speech of the marginalized, underscoring the necessity of safeguarding this freedom as foundational to justice and human dignity. The discourse on human rights presupposes the ability of individuals and communities to make claims against authority. Yet claims are not self-executing; they require articulation, dissemination, and recognition. As argued in Muslims and the Western Conception of Rights, the right that enables these processes—freedom of speech—is therefore not simply one right among many but the very foundation upon which all other rights depend. Absent this freedom, no individual or community can effectively assert their humanity or contest violations of dignity. The indispensability of freedom of speech is most evident when examined through the prism of power. Rights are always situated in asymmetrical relationships. Individuals and groups with political authority, economic wealth, or social capital enjoy disproportionate access to platforms of communication and to the means of amplifying their voices. By contrast, marginalized communities […]

More

Load More