On Feb. 18, a panel discussion was held in the Konover Auditorium titled “U.S. Democracy & Human Rights at a Crossroads.” Kathryn Libal, director of the Gladstein Human Rights Institute, was the first to speak and introduced the panelists, as well as the moderator and Christohper Dodd Chair in Human Rights Practices, James Waller.
There were four panelists participating in the discussion. Jason Chang, the director of the American & Asian Studies Institute; Evelyn Simien, director of the African Studies Institutes; Sandy Grande, director of Native American & Indigenous Studies and Charles Venator-Santiago, director of El Instituto.
Waller opened the panel on how after the cold war, there was optimism that Democracy would “March forward, not retreat.” Instead, a breakdown of democratic ideals ensued, and Waller fears that this breakdown has reached the U.S. “Democracies fade like the end of the day,” Waller said.
After this introduction, Waller asked his first question to the panelists: Do they believe Democracy in the U.S. is at a crossroads? And what does that mean for the protection of human rights?
Chang answered first, saying that U.S. democracy has always been at a crossroads. He described that in order to have an effective democracy, we need to trust our peers, make effort in using our rights and find joy in protecting human rights. We should also continuously find new human rights frontiers to fight for.
Chang also highlighted how there is nearly endless money in the U.S. for the police and military. Chang also made the argument that the Democratic party holds a supermajority in Connecticut due to their stranglehold over military contracts.
Simien used an analogy to associate U.S. democracy with that of someone who has a chronic disease. She says that the patient forgets that events like Jan. 6 happened.
According to Simien, there should be a debate if democracy has a terminal illness, and what medication or therapy it would need to cure it.
As a political scientist, Simien views our democracy as her latest patient. She believes that while there are some symptoms it has that are reversible, they have been identified too late and there’s not much we can do about them. She recommends that U.S. democracy is put into a hospice care for this analogy.
Venator-Santiago plays devil’s advocate in saying that the U.S. is not democratic at all, as the president is elected via electoral college. He added that California has almost 10 times the population of Connecticut, but they receive the same amount of representation in the Senate.
As a Puerto Rican, Venator-Santiago said his family were considered terrorists for trying to build an independent Puerto Rico. He concluded his comments by running through the major actions taken by presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Richard Nixon during their administrations.
Waller moved on with his second question: Is there anything we could do to engage in a healthy dialogue and respectful disagreement at UConn?
Simien argued that education should be moved out of the classroom and into the community. She suggested this could be made possible by collaborating with grassroots social justice organizations. She stated that to “save democracy,” collective action is necessary. Americans must be invested to change democracy and make it accessible for everyone, including the most vulnerable, according to Simien.
Following Simien, Grande argued that it has become hard to enter intellectual spaces because you can’t find the information to do so. She cited several contributing factors to trend including the erosion of trusted and knowledgeable sources of information, book-banning and attacks on the universities and the press.
Grande emphasized the widening wealth inequality between Americans as being the main factor for the dissolution of this discussion culture. There are 800 billionaires in the U.S., and the top three richest men in America have as much money as the bottom half of Americans. Grande argued that fighting against this polarized inequality should be the goal.
Venator-Santiago argues that we should take advantage of the skills we learn at UConn and use them in the service of others. He shared an anecdote of how a legislator asked him to find a way to decrease energy costs in Connecticut. Venator-Santiago gave the problem to a research assistant, who was able to find a way to reduce costs by 60%.
Chang went last and advocated for UConn to foster a discussion culture by increasing people’s “vocabulary of action.” According to Chang, one major action — like voting — will not completely save a democracy. UConn needs to work on funding programs, research and activists who can act for democracy, Chang claimed.
As part of a capstone program, Chang teaches Deepa Iyer’s work on a “social change ecosystem,” so that he can drill in her idea of doing things together because we are stronger together.
Waller moved on to his last question: Is there a possibility that the story of U.S. democracy can lead to a happy ending?
Grande went first, as she wanted to exclaim that to foster dialogue at UConn, UConn should stop arresting its students. The statement had the most rapturous applause of the whole event. As for U.S. democracy, Grande believes that if this democracy wants to survive, it will need to look at other democracies.
Venator-Santiago pushed for the idea of equality. Now is an opportunity to spring into action and fix a failing institution, according to Venator Santiago. He added that this should be a collective endeavor.
Chang first remarked that the U.S. is an empire, and an entity that is very capable in creating violence. Likewise, so is Connecticut with how entrenched some Connecticut companies are within the military industrial complex, Chang argued. The resources used to prop up should be shared, according to Chang. “We put [the resources] towards each other,” and help future generations. He concluded that it could take a lot of work, but it can lead to new paths.
Lastly, Simien responded that when she heard Waller’s question, she began thinking about a laundry list of problems that we could not solve. But she looks towards her students and their ideas, actions and strategies, to find inspiration. After these students graduate, she hopes they value each other’s lives and hopefully work together for a better future.