American ideals & human rights: Findings from new public opinion research by the opportunity agenda

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 77, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 439-458

  Jenkins, Alan ^a   Hsu, Kevin Shawn ^a  

^a Opportunity Agenda ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58049174639     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (101)

1. For example, all countries except for eight nonsignatory states and the United States have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. See Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women New York, 18 December 1979, http://www2.ohchr.Org/english/bodies/ ratification/8.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2008). All U.N. member-states except for Somalia and the United States have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. See, e.g., Gabriella Blum, Bilateralism, Multilateralism, and the Architecture of International Law, 49 HARV. INT'L L.J. 323, 345 (2008); Jimmy Carter, What's Right for Children, 20 EMORY INT'L L. REV. 1 (2006). A majority of U.N. memberstates, the United States not among them, have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. See COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FACTSHEET, STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE OF THE ICC, available at http://www.iccnow.org/documents/RatificationsbyUNGroup- 18-July-07.pdf. One hundred and fifty-nine countries, the United States not among them, have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. See Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights New York, 16 December 1966, http://www2.ohchr.Org/english/bodies/ratification/3.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2008).
2. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 575-76 (2005); see also Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 344 (2003) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (noting the international understanding of the need for and limits to affirmative action embodied in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination).
3. See International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), U.N. Doc A/6014 (Dec. 21, 1965).
4. See International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature Dec. 19, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948); N.Y. CONST, art. XVII, §§ 1, 3. See generally Martha Davis, The Spirit of Our Times: State Constitutions and International Human Rights, 30 N.Y.U. REV. L. & Soc. CHANGE 359 (2006); Helen Hershkoff, Welfare Devolution and State Constitutions, 67 FORDHAM L. REV. 1403 (1999); Burt Neuborne, State Constitutions and the Evolution of Positive Rights, 20 RUTGERS L.J. 881 (1989).
5. E.g., Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (Dec. 10, 1984); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3517, 75 U.N.T.S. 287.
6. See, e.g., Roger P. Alford, Misusing International Sources to Interpret the Constitution, 98 AM. J. INT'L L. 57, 58-61 (2004) (finding some applications of international law to be "countermajoritarian"); Jed Rubenfeld, Unilateralism and Constitutionalism, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1971, 2017-18 (2004) (describing international law as "undemocratic" and declaring international legal institutions "famous for their . . . opacity, remoteness from popular or representative politics, elitism, and unaccountability"); John O. McGinnis & Ilya Somin, Democracy and International Human Rights Law (Nw. Univ. Sch. of Law, Pub. Law & Legal Theory Series, Working Paper No. 08-08, 2008), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1116406 (arguing that international human rights laws are created through undemocratic processes by "unrepresentative legal elites" and are thus less legitimate than domestic law, especially with regard to substantive economic rights); Christian G. Vergonis, The Federalism Implications of International Human Rights Law 11-12 (Mar. 25, 2007) (unpublished white paper), available at http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20070325-vergonishumanright.pdf (arguing that applying international human rights legal norms to domestic federal law is "anti-democratic" and unrepresentative).
7. See e.g., NESRI: National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, Human Rights in the United States, http://www.nesri.org/human-rights-us/index. html (last visited Oct. 16, 2008).
8. U.S. CONST, art. VI, §2.
9. CAROL ANDERSON, EYES OFF THE PRIZE: THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN STRUGGLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 1944-1955, at 131-38, 151,227-30 (2003).
10. Id. at 218-23.
11. E.g., Daniel Gallington, Commentary, Health Insurance Disinformation, WASH. TIMES (D.C.), Aug. 18, 2008, at A16 ("[I]n countries with 'socialized medicine' (e.g., the United Kingdom and Canada)... there are simply not enough health-care resources to go around, and there has remained a separate and better-quality system for people who can pay for it, much like in countries without socialized medicine."); Matt Henderson, Letter to the Editor, Health Care Problems, TRI-CITY HERALD (Wash.), July 15, 2008, at A9 ("The only fix for the health care crisis is to take personal responsibility of your health. We're the ones generating the claims. The lack of accountability within socialized medicine is simply unsustainable long term, just ask Canada!"); Editorial, Labor Disputes, LIMA NEWS (Ohio), Sept. 1, 2008, http://www.limaohio.com/articles/labor- 27580-article.html/care-union.html ("The debate over government-provided health care-socialized medicine, universal coverage or whatever you want to call it-also is back. ... But getting government further out of the way-driving down the costs of regulatory burdens-should be a goal."); Carla Marinucci, Teenager's Pregnancy, Storm Roil Opening Day, S.F. CHRON., Sept. 2, 2008, at Al ("Wilson told the delegates that 'class warfare ... has been the staple of the [Democratic Party] even since the New Deal days,' and that the party offers nothing more than 'taxing and spending' and 'socialized medicine' as its agenda.").
12. See supra note 6.
13. See, e.g., Kathryn Burke et al., Application of International Human Rights Law in State and Federal Courts, 18 TEX. INT'L L.J. 291 (1983); Martha Davis, International Human Rights and United States Law: Predictions of a Courtwatcher, 64 ALA. L. REV. 417 (2000); Connie de la Vega, Protecting Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 15 WHITTIER L. REV. 471 (1994); Paul L. Hoffman, The Application of International Human Rights Law in State Courts: A View from California, 18 INT'L LAW. 61 (1984); Harold Hongju Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 AM. J. INT'L L. 43 (2004); Symposium, International Law and the Constitution: Terms of Engagement, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 399 (2008); Symposium, International Law in the United States Legal System: Observance, Application, and Enforcement, 45 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 807 (2005).
14. Loren Siegel Consulting, Human Rights in the United States: Enthusiasm Tempered by Skepticism, Findings with Social Justice Advocates, in THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA, HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE U.S.: OPINION RESEARCH WITH ADVOCATES, JOURNALISTS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC 1 (2007) [hereinafter THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA], available at http://www.opportunityagenda.org/atf/cf/%7B2ACB2581-1559-47D6-8973- 70CD23C286C B%7D/HUMAN%20RIGHTS%20REPORT.PDF.
15. Position categories of discussion group participants included executive directors, communications staff, development staff, organizers, program staff, and attorneys. Subject matter areas covered by the participants' organizations were civil rights, rights of the homeless, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, labor, living wage, poverty law, racial equity, women's health, and urban revitalization. Id.
16. Advocacy staff members were selected by The Opportunity Agenda and by foundations focused on human rights work in the United States. The online survey tool SurveyMonkey was used to administer, analyze, and cross-tabulate findings. Id. at 1. Recipients were unaware of the subject matter of the poll before agreeing to complete it. Id.
17. Each focus group consisted of between eight and ten participants, with a total of fifty-two participants across the six groups. Belden Russonello & Stewart, Human Rights in the United States: "The Thing to Strive For," A Report of Six Focus Groups, in THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA, supra note 14, at 1, 2 [hereinafter Focus Groups].
18. The groups were distributed geographically as follows: Latino men and African American women in Atlanta, Latino women and liberal White women in Chicago, and liberal Whites (without regard for gender) and African American men in Minneapolis. Id.
19. The survey was conducted by Belden Russonello & Stewart using a computerassisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system, from June 20 to July 8, 2007, and with a random sample of 1633 adults. Interviewers were professional, fully trained, and supervised. Interviews averaged eighteen minutes in length, and interviews and data collection were monitored to ensure quality. The margin of sampling error for the survey is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. Belden Russonello & Stewart, Human Rights in the United States: Findings from a National Survey, in THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA, supra note 14, app. B, at 2 [hereinafter National Survey].
20. Id. at 33.
21. Id. at 3.
22. Id. at 53.
23. Id. at 12 (citing Peter D. Hart Research Assocs., Inc., Adult Survey Data, http://wvvwl.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/adultsur.htrn (last visited Oct. 16, 2008)).
24. Id. at 3.
25. Id.
26. Id. at 53.
27. Id. at 56.
28. Id. at 3.
29. Id.
30. Focus Groups, supra note 17, at 3, 9.
31. Id. at 13.
32. National Survey, supra note 19, at 4.
33. Id. at 17-18.
34. Id. at 18.
35. Id.
36. Interestingly, public recognition of abortion as a human right is significantly higher than the level of support for the legality of abortion captured in most recent national polls. For example, when asked, "Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?" 18% responded "Legal in all cases" and 35% responded "Legal in most cases," for a total of 53%. Polling Report, Inc., Abortion, http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm (last visited Oct. 18, 2008) (listing the results from a June 12-15, 2008, ABC News/Washington Post poll). Similarly, when asked the same question in October, 2007, by the Pew Research Center, 21% responded "Legal in all cases" and 32% responded "Legal in most cases," also for a total of 53%. Id. (listing the results from an October 17-23, 2007, survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press).
37. National Survey, supra note 19, at 19.
38. Id. at 4.
39. Id. at 19.
40. Id.
41. The focus group of moderate-to-liberal voters found that most of those participants did believe that "the treatment of illegal immigrants is an instance in which the U.S. is in violation of human rights," specifically in the case of abusive treatment by employers or violations of fairness and dignity, such as the separation of children from parents due to deportation. Focus Groups, supra note 17, at 15. It is thus not clear that the specific problem posed in the national survey regarding access to medical care is reflective of the resonance of the human rights framework in all immigration-related issues.
42. Majorities of African Americans (67% total agree; 40% "strongly"), Latinos (61%; 40% "strongly"), Asian Americans (62%; 30% "strongly"), those with postgraduate degrees (57%; 30% "strongly"), Democrats (61%; 33% "strongly"), liberals (65%; 34% "strongly), urbanites (54%; 27% "strongly"), and those living in the Northeast (52%; 26% "strongly") and the South Atlantic (55%; 28% "strongly") agree that denying undocumented immigrants access to medical care is a human rights violation. National Survey, supra note 19, app. A, at 7 Majorities of Whites (53% total disagree), those with less than a college degree (51%), Republicans (64%), moderates (53%), conservatives (55%), rural residents (54%), and those living in the Midwest (52%) and South (51%) disagree that denial of medical care to undocumented immigrants is a human rights violation. Id.
43. Id. at 5, 22.
44. Id. at 5, 23.
45. Id. at 24.
46. Id.
47. Id. at 6.
48. Id.
49. Id.
50. Id.
51. Peter D. Hart Research Assocs., Inc., supra note 23.
52. Cluster analysis separates the population into groups based on attitudes, as opposed to "cross-tab" reporting that looks at survey results based on demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, and level of education. National Survey, supra note 19, at 33. Attitudinal segmentation views survey results in terms of opinions and likelihood of action, a useful analysis when studying framing of messages. In this survey, groups were segmented based on five themes: (1) belief in human rights, (2) perception that human rights violations exist in the United States, (3) belief in the need for government program expansion to protect human rights, (4) concerns regarding human rights and U.S. sovereignty, and (5) feeling of urgency in the need to address human rights in the United States. Id.
53. Id.
54. Id.
55. Id. at 7.
56. Id. at 10.
57. Id.
58. Id. at 35.
59. Id. at 36. Note, however, that even among Human Rights Champions, a majority (55%) agree that the United Nations is not an effective human rights enforcer around the world. Id. Although this is the smallest percentage amongst any cluster to view the United Nations as ineffective, it is perhaps reflective of a broader discourse regarding the international body that has pervaded American discourse. It is also a possible reflection of the reality of the United Nations' efforts to stop human rights abuses around the world.
60. Id. at 37.
61. Id. at 7.
62. Id. at 37, 50.
63. Id. at 37.
64. Id.
65. Id. at 10.
66. Id. at 40.
67. Id. at 38.
68. Id. at 39.
69. Id.. at 40.
70. Id.
71. Id.
72. Id.
73. Id. at 40, 57.
74. Id. at 40.
75. Id. at 10.
76. Id. at 10, 41.
77. Id. at 53
78. Id. at 42.
79. Id. at 43.
80. Id. at 42.
81. Id. at 41.
82. Id. at 44.
83. Id.
84. Id.
85. Id. at 51.
86. Id. at 44.
87. Id.
88. Id.
89. Id. at 45, 47.
90. Id. at 46, 48.
91. Id. at 46, 48, 50.
92. Id.
93. Id. at 46.
94. Id.
95. Id. at 48.
96. Id. at 46, 48.
97. Id.
98. Id. at 46.
99. Loren Siegel Consulting, supra note 14, at 4-5.
100. Id. at 3.
101. Id. at 9.