Using anti-racist messaging boosts credibility of human rights groups, Notre Dame study shows
How can human rights groups criticize governments' human rights violations without appearing racist or fueling racism toward diaspora groups? New research by a University of Notre Dame human rights expert sheds light on the complex relationship between race and human rights, especially as it plays out between human rights groups and governments.
“If public criticism by a human rights group, known as shaming, could be perceived as racist, it could threaten these organizations’ impartial, unbiased reputations,” said Zoltan Búzás, associate professor of global affairs at the University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. “Maintaining a reputation for fairness is critical for enabling these organizations’ important work: raising funds, recruiting volunteers and mobilizing Americans to pressure their representatives against human rights violations.”
In a study published in the American Journal of Political Science, Búzás and Lotem Bassan-Nygate of Harvard University found that when shaming by human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, included anti-racist cues denouncing racism, survey respondents perceived the shaming as less racist. For example, a February 2022 Amnesty report labeling Israel an “apartheid state” but condemning antisemitism and clarifying that its criticism was aimed at the government, not Jewish people, reduced perceptions of racism by 5 percent when compared to a report with no anti-racist cues.
“Human rights organizations should seriously consider emulating Amnesty’s use of anti-racist cues in shaming messages,” Búzás said. “Although shaming with such cues is slightly less effective at mobilizing the public against human rights violators than shaming without cues, the price seems worth paying to lower perceptions of racism.”
The researchers conducted two U.S. survey experiments involving nearly 7,000 respondents and interviews with 11 individuals from the prominent human rights organizations Amnesty International, Oxfam and Human Rights Watch. Survey results showed that shaming of the Israeli and Chinese governments for human rights violations reduced support for the governments themselves but did not increase antisemitism or anti-Asian sentiment.
“If shamers face a racial dilemma, it is less about how to shame without fueling racism, and more about how to shame without appearing racist,” said Búzás, though he noted that more research is needed to explore the issue of fueling racism among diasporas.
The researchers also investigated “countershaming” — when targeted governments accuse human rights organizations of racism — and found that governments can partially win back foreign support by making accusations of racism.
In the case of China, for example, racial countershaming by the Chinese government increased overall support by nearly 3 percent, almost completely eliminating the adverse effects of shaming.
Búzas recently shared the study’s findings with several prominent human rights organizations in a meeting at the Keough School’s Washington Office. Future research on this topic should explore additional tactics for minimizing perceptions of racism beyond anti-racist cues, Búzás said.
“These cues are just one instrument,” he said. “Organizations could also look into internal reform such as diversifying their staff and their boards, creating strong accountability mechanisms and embracing inclusive organizational cultures. This question of developing and protecting a good reputation came up repeatedly and deserves more sustained study. Ultimately, however, human rights organizations should strive to become genuinely anti-racist organizations, rather than simply engage in superficial reputation management.”
Research was funded by the Klau Institute for Civil and Human Rights and the Keough School of Global Affairs.
Originally published by at keough.nd.edu on Dec. 20.
Latest Colleges & Schools
- ‘Prebunking’ false election claims may boost trust in electionsIn recent years, democracies worldwide have seen a growing erosion of trust in election outcomes and institutions, driven in part by fears of widespread fraud. New Notre Dame research finds that “prebunking” — providing accurate information before false claims spread — boosts trust in elections more effectively than traditional fact-checking.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett to deliver Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government lectureAmy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, will speak at the University of Notre Dame at 4 p.m. Sept. 12 in the Leighton Concert Hall of the DeBartolo Performing Arts Center.
- Three Notre Dame researchers win NEH grants for humanities-based projectsDavid Hernandez, the Eli J. and Helen Shaheen Associate Professor of Classics, and Morgan Munsen, senior research and partnerships program manager at the Nanovic Institute for European Studies in the Keough School of Global Affairs, have each won an NEH Collaborative Research grant. Thomas A. Stapleford, associate professor in the Program of Liberal Studies, is leading a team that has been awarded a Humanities Research Center on Artificial Intelligence grant.
- Open-access database offers insights into U.S. congressional candidatesEach election cycle, thousands of candidates vie for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Until now, there has been no comprehensive, publicly available resource cataloging what those candidates say about who they are or what they stand for. A new open-access database called CampaignView, created by researchers at the University of Notre Dame, offers researchers, journalists and educators a powerful tool to understand congressional elections.
- First impressions count: How babies are talked about during ultrasounds impacts parent perceptions, caregiving relationshipPsychologist Kaylin Hill studied the impact of a parent’s first impression of their baby during an ultrasound exam. The words used by the medical professional to describe the baby (positive or negative) influence how the parents perceive their baby, relate to them after they're born and even how that child behaves as a toddler. The research has broad implications for how we train medical professionals to interact with expectant parents, as well as how we care for parents during the perinatal period when they are most susceptible to depression.
- Prioritizing prenatal care may decrease low birth weight outcomes in The Gambia, Notre Dame research findsA new study co-authored by University of Notre Dame researchers highlights the importance of prenatal care for improving the health of mothers and newborns, providing evidence that can inform policy.
