human rights

While efforts to censor children’s media were common during the mid-20th century, they focused on targeting violent or sexual content and were often bipartisan. Recent research from Michael Macy (Professor of Sociology at Cornell University), Adam Szetela (Writer; Ph.D. in English), and Shiyu Ji (Ph.D. Candidate at Cornell University) finds that censorship efforts are now more focused on political ideology (the political left targeting media that reinforces racism, sexism, and homophobia; the political right targeting media that promotes diversity or challenges traditional gender / sexuality norms). “When each side attacks cancel culture on the other side, the attacks do not cancel out – they additively contribute to the restriction of freedom of expression,” Macy commented. “When people see ‘freedom of expression’ as just another weapon to use in the culture wars, it contributes to the problem of censorship by demeaning free expression as a core societal value.” This story was covered by the Cornell Chronicle. 

Michael Macy, Adam Szetela, and Shiyu Ji

Emine Fidan Elcioglu (Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto) wrote an article for The Conversation discussing YouTube’s role in the political education of young people in Canada. Elcioglu found that “young people now form political beliefs through two competing knowledge systems: a hollowed-out university, and YouTube’s attention economy.” While universities tend to highlight structural explanations for inequality, conservative influencers on YouTube tend to offer simple narratives and emotionally charged content that feels true.

Emine Fidan Elcioglu

A Georgetown University lecture series on Gaza featured Martin Shaw (historical sociologist and Professor Emeritus of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex) to discuss the process of defining genocides in legal courts. Shaw noted that “the relationship of war to genocide is a central paradox: Genocide must be distinguished from war, but it typically occurs within the context of war.” He also discussed how the United States and Israel are very influential in international courts, making it difficult to resolve issues without the support of Western nations. “The problem here is not non-intervention, but deep intervention on Israel’s side,” Shaw said. “International courts have been unprecedentedly active in this case, but they have also been unprecedentedly attacked by the United States and Israel and barely defended by Europe.” This story was covered by The Hoya.

Martin Shaw

Andreas Reckwitz (Professor of Sociology at Humboldt University of Berlin) wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on modernity and loss. Reckwitz describes that “the ideal of modern society is freedom from loss” and we presume constant innovation and increasing well-being in modern societies. However, Reckwitz argues that loss–environmental loss, economic loss, and regressions of geopolitics–is a “pervasive condition of life in Europe and America.”

Andreas Reckwitz

Rebecca Hanson (Professor of Sociology at the University of Florida), David Smilde (Professor of Sociology at Tulane University), and Verónica Zubillaga (Sociologist and Co-Director of the Network for Activism and Research for Coexistence) wrote an article for the New York Times in response to the Trump administration’s deportations of Venezuelan men to El Salvador. Hanson, Smilde, and Zubillaga note that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua lacks organizational power and political aspirations in the U.S.: “Organized crime is far less portable than people usually think. It typically involves control of illicit markets, which in turn depends on relationships with local people and officials. These networks are not easily transferable and limit mobility.” The authors challenge these inhumane deportations: “The mass criminalization, arbitrary detainment and violation of due process that have characterized the Trump administration’s actions so far have echoed some of the tactics of the Venezuelan regime many of these young men presumably fled from. It reduces U.S. credibility and emboldens authoritarians everywhere.”

Rebecca Hanson, David Smilde, and Verónica Zubillaga

Oneya Fennell Okuwobi (Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Cincinnati) wrote an article for Salon highlighting the unintended consequences of diversity initiatives–in particular, that they tend to benefit corporations, not employees. Okuwobi explains how many workplaces engage in “diversity displays,” focusing on external appearances. “While workplaces receive the bulk of benefits, employees of color receive the burdens of upholding the image of diversity, with serious costs in terms of additional work, questions about our capabilities, and the need to fit the appearance of diversity that our workplaces desire.” Okuwobi writes more on this topic in her new book, Who Pays for Diversity: Why Programs Fail at Racial Equity and What to Do About It. 

Oneya Fennell Okuwobi

Lucius Couloute (Assistant Professor of Sociology at Trinity College) wrote an article for The Conversation on how U.S. parole systems contribute to recidivism. Couloute argues that although parole was “originally designed to help those convicted of crimes reintegrate into society – through mentorship, supportive services and other resources,” it now serves as a system of punitive surveillance that creates “hidden traps rather than pathways to success.”

Lucius Couloute

Lucius Couloute (Assistant Professor of Sociology at Trinity College) wrote an article for The Conversation on how U.S. parole systems contribute to recidivism. Couloute argues that although parole was “originally designed to help those convicted of crimes reintegrate into society – through mentorship, supportive services and other resources,” it now serves as a system of punitive surveillance that creates “hidden traps rather than pathways to success.”The New York Times ran an article on how I.V.F. technologies may be changing the way we view and relate to embryos. Time-lapse microscopy, a technology that has been widely used since the early 2010s, allows for observation of embryo developments. Many clinics share this video footage with patients on the day of their embryo transfer, before they know if the transfer was successful. The article cites research from Manuela Perrotta (Sociologist at the Queen Mary University of London), finding that some clients experience a deep connection with the video footage. “​​I felt like it was, it was a baby,” one patient told Perrotta and a research co-author. “It sounds really weird, but it felt like I was looking at a potential baby there, and watching it move and do all the stuff, and I just looked, it looked — I know it wasn’t just cells for me.”

Manuela Perrotta and Lucius Couloute

This week, Christine L. William’s (Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas) work on workplace inequality was featured in a question on Jeopardy!: “Similar to a barrier to women’s rise, this ‘escalator’ coined by sociologist Christine Williams invisibly lifts men.” This story was covered by the ASA.

Christine L. William

Robert Putnam (Professor Emeritus of Public Policy at Harvard University) was interviewed in a segment for PBS News Hour on discussing the effects of social isolation on civic engagement: “That is a primary cause of the Trump phenomenon. … When people are socially isolated, as we are increasingly, they become vulnerable to populist appeals.” Putnum’s most recent book, The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do it Again, highlights the parallels between modern American and the late 1800s–a deeply fragmented, individualistic, and polarized time period. Putnam describes how an “explosion” of new civic, religious, and social groups sparked a “moral revival” that led people to think in more collective ways: “People began to say, wait a minute, it’s not all about us. We have obligations to other people.”

Robert Putnam

Florence Becot (Lead of the Agricultural Safety and Health Program at Penn State University) appeared on The FarmHouse–a podcast by Lancaster Farming–to discuss the unique stressors on women in agriculture. Becot described that many women take on “invisible work” on farms, including raising children while still performing farm work. “Raising children on the farm is wonderful. So many moms talked about how much they love having the children around. They wouldn’t do it any other way,” Becot said. “But the reality is, we’ve talked to women farmers who said if I was a nurse at the hospital, I wouldn’t be allowed to bring my kid. Why is there this weird expectation that I should have my kid with me when I’m driving this really heavy piece of machinery?”

Florence Becot

Battle for Tibet, a new documentary from FRONTLINE, examines China’s rule over Tibet. The film features Tibetan sociologist Gyal Lo’s study of Chinese boarding schools for Tibetan children. The Chinese government claims that these schools promote “human rights and cultural heritage protection.” However, Lo found that there were two main focuses in the boarding schools: “One is to instill the communist ideology and the second is to instill Chinese culture. These two subject areas of teaching are being implemented to change the Tibetan children’s mindset.” Lo warns that “Over the next 15 to 20 years, if boarding schools continue, Tibetan national culture and identity will be completely destroyed.”

Gyal Lo

Willam Robinson (Professor of Sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara) spoke at the Peoples’ Platform Europe 2025, discussing the “unprecedented crisis in global capitalism.” Robinson described four main elements of the crisis: 1) stagnant, concentrated economic systems, 2) billions of people treated as “disposable”, 3) the rise of authoritarianism, and 4) environmental destruction. Robinson said. “Never has the slogan ‘resist to exist’ been more opportune and appropriate.” This story was covered by Medya News.

Willam Robinson

As troops leave the military in droves, Nicolas Maduro appears to be losing his grip on the presidency in Venezuela. Presiding over a long running national crisis, Maduro remains in power nearly a year after an election that much of his political opposition, the United States, and many U.S. allies deemed fraudulent. Much of Maduro’s opposition claims the presidency should go to his political rival, Juan Guaidó. Possible intervention of the United States remains on the table, and there is a long history of U.S. intervention in the nation, which, if it happens again, could garner more support for Maduro.

As Guaidó now calls for national protest against Maduro, top military generals and a significant portion of Venezuelans, the chavistas remain at the president’s side. A recent article in The Nation by sociologists Tim Gill and Rebecca Hanson argues Guaidó should attend to the plights of chavistas — historic backers of Maduro’s far-left predecessor Hugo Chávez –for any presidential transition to be successful.

Gill argues that Guaidó’s initial rise was due in part to the U.S. influence on student movements that Guaidó was a part of meant to rid Chávez of his office, and enable the U.S. to retain a foothold in political and economic matters in Venezuela. Guaidó’s association with the United States comes at a price.

Hanson’s decade-long work with Venezuelans in Caracas suggests that even though many have continued to oppose Maduro, “some would prefer that [Guaidó] ‘put his house in order’ without outside intervention—that he demonstrate his ability to generate support within Venezuela.”

Whether it is Guaidó or Maduro in power, many Venezuelans believe that their country will be under the service of the United States or Russia and China, respectively.  

Gill and Hanson argue that Guaidó should instead attend more to his own people — such as offering free healthcare and the protection of human rights — which would serve the poor and working class through and after his transition into power. They also state this strategy should include aligning himself with former president, Hugo Chávez and his followers, the chavistas. Chávez remains a political icon beyond his death due to his legacy as an advocate for the poor and his outspokenness against American intervention in Venezuela. To these ends, Gill and Hanson conclude:

“There is no political future in Venezuela without chavista participation, and, one way or another, the opposition and chavismo will eventually need to work together toward a new future.”

The Summer Olympics in London could be a watershed event in sports, as every country is expected to send female athletes to participate.  In the past, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Brunei have only sent male athletes, according to the New York Times.

Saudi Arabia, a monarchy whose legal system is based on Islamic law, is considered the most significant of the three, given its size, international oil influence and severe restrictions placed on women in daily life. While female athletes from Qatar and Brunei have participated in national and regional competitions, Saudi Arabia has essentially barred sports for women, according to Human Rights Watch.

According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, women in Saudi Arabia are systematically discriminated against when it comes to sports.  There is no physical education for girls in state schools, and gyms were closed for women in 2009 and 2010.  So, while senior Human Rights Watch researcher Christoph Wilcke welcomes the participation, he notes that the International Olympic Committee should work toward more systemic change.

However, even this change might have effects beyond Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia’s sending of female athletes could put pressure on other countries with similar restrictions to do the same, said Martha F. Davis, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law.

“I think it’s a savvy move,” she said. “It’s trying to make sure there isn’t a groundswell of Arab Spring-like activities and being responsive to those yearnings to participate. It’s being proactive.”

Professor Erika George (S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah) noted that there may be some negative reactions as well.

“There are people who may think it’s inappropriate,” George said. “But there’s precedent for this. It’s going to be hard to argue that a woman can be an Olympic champion but not be behind the wheel.”

We’ve all heard that there is no peace without justice and vice versa.  But, when policy makers and leaders discuss how to handle national and international conflicts, peace and justice are often pitted against each other.  Recently, the trial of Hosni Mubarak and the Internal Criminal Court’s opening hearings on Kenya have elicited many criticisms that prosecuting leaders who have grossly violated human rights will in fact undermine democracy and exacerbate conflict.  Political Scientist Kathryn Sikkink considers these claims in a New York Times Op-Ed.

Critics argue that the threat of prosecution leads dictators like Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan to entrench themselves in power rather than negotiate a transition to democracy. In El Salvador, where domestic courts have refused to extradite officers accused of murdering Jesuit priests 22 years ago, critics claim that such a prosecution would undermine stability and sovereignty.

But, Kathryn’s research provides evidence to question some of these concerns.

My research shows that transitional countries — those moving from authoritarian governments to democracy or from civil war to peace — where human rights prosecutions have taken place subsequently become less repressive than transitional countries without prosecutions, holding other factors constant.

Of 100 countries that underwent a transition from 1980 to 2004 (the period for which extensive data is available), 48 pursued at least one human rights prosecution, and 33 of those pursued two or more. Countries that have prosecuted former officials exhibit lower levels of torture, summary execution, forced disappearances and political imprisonment. Although civil war heightens repression, prosecutions in the context of civil war do not make the situation worse, as critics claim.

Kathryn believes that the possibility of punishment and disgrace deters future leaders from violating human rights.

From the final Nuremberg trials in 1949 until the 1970s, there was virtually no chance that heads of state and government officials would be held accountable for human rights violations. But in the last two decades, the likelihood of punishment has increased, and newly installed officials may be more cautious before deciding to murder or torture their political opponents.

So, while confronting the past may be painful and difficult, it could result in a better future.