Middle School Civics - Article

Objectives: Students will be able to:

• Define and categorize human rights.
• Explain the source of human rights.
• Take and defend a position about how to best protect human rights.

NJ Student Learning Standards for Social Studies:

6.3.8.CivicsHR.1: Construct an argument as to the source of human rights and how they are best protected.

Time: Two to three days

Focus Questions:

• What are human rights?
• How do we define human rights?
• What are the sources of human rights?
• How can human rights best be protected?

I. WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?

Discussion: Start the lesson by asking students the most basic question: “What are human rights?” Encourage your students to think as broadly or specifically as they wish. They may identify conceptual ideas like, life, liberty and equality; or they may refer to tangible elements of their lives, such as access to good food, shelter and education. Record the answers for the students to see, review, and consider for the next step of the lesson.

II. HOW DO WE DEFINE HUMAN RIGHTS?

Activity: Defining Human Rights. Have students work in small groups. Ask them to develop definitions of human rights by referring to their answers to the previous question. Then have each group share their definitions with the class. Finally, compare the small group definitions with definitions offered by Amnesty International and the United Nations.

• Amnesty International: Human rights are the freedoms and protections that belong to every single one of us. They are inherent to all human beings, regardless of who they are, where they were born, what language they speak, the color of their skin or any other status. The essence of human rights is to treat each other with respect and dignity. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination, no matter where they were born, how much money they have, or their gender. (Source: Human Rights 101: What are Human Rights? | Amnesty International USA)
• United Nations: Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings. They are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty. (Source: What are human rights? | OHCHR)

Activity: Categorizing Human Rights. Begin by defining “categorization” (Suggested answer - the process of grouping things by type in a systematic arrangement). Then, in small groups, ask students to categorize human rights. Their lists should contain no fewer than five and no more than eight categories. Have the groups share their lists with the class and discuss their reasoning. Record the answers for the students to see, review, and consider in later activities.. Finally, engage the class in a civil discussion to formulate, by consensus, a class list of human rights categories.

Although there are disagreements, political philosophers and human rights advocacy groups have consistently recognized the following categories:

1. Due process rights
2. Economic rights
3. Political rights
4. Rights to maintain security
5. Rights to preserve liberty
6. Rights to maintain equality before the law
7. Social rights (i.e., right to work, education, health, etc)
8. Group rights (i.e., recognition of and protection for women, children, the disabled, minority groups, etc.)

III. WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF OUR IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS?

Background: Throughout history, specific rights were only occasionally recognized within the laws of a country or nation.

• The Cyrus Cylinder - An early example of human rights recognition came in 539 B.C. after Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. Cyrus freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established a degree of racial equality. These ideals were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder, known as the Cyrus Cylinder, and spread quickly to India, Greece and Rome. Those is power, however, offered little protection for the human rights of individuals ( For more information see: History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights)
• The Magna Carta - In 1215, King John of England was compelled by his barons to sign the Magna Carta, or Great Charter. It offered specific recognition of:
  • the right of the church to be free from governmental interference
  • the rights of free citizens to own and inherit property
  • the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry
  • rights of due process and equality before the law
• Because the Magna Carta also established the principle that no one (not even a king) is above the law, it came to be seen as the first legal document to both recognize and protect human rights. (For more, see: Magna Carta Summary (1215), Petition of Right)
• The Petition of Right. In 1628, King Charles supported his foreign policy by exacting forced loans and quartering troops in private homes and imprisoning those who resisted. Parliament responded with the Petition of Right, a statement of civil liberties based upon earlier statutes and charters. It asserted four principles:
  • No taxes may be levied without consent of Parliament
  • No subject may be imprisoned without cause shown (the right of habeas corpus)
  • No soldiers may be quartered upon the citizenry
  • Martial law may not be used in times of peace.
• (For more information, see: Petition of Right (1628) History, Principles, & Facts
• The English Bill of Rights - In 1688, King James II was dethroned for his abuse of power. The following year, James’ daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange signed the English Bill of Rights, which allowed them to succeed James in return for a commitment to recognize and protect certain rights of individuals. They included the:
  • right to elect and members of Parliament
  • right to petition Parliament and the King or Queen
  • consent of the people, through Parliament, to raise taxes
  • right to bear arms for self-defense
• (For more information, see English Bill of Rights - Definition & Legacy | HISTORY; or view the video at What is the English Bill of Rights?)

The English Bill of Rights was inspired in part by the political philosophy of John Locke. He argued that while man-made law may recognize human rights, their true source lay in the nature of man. Invite students to think like Locke and other Natural Rights Philosophers with the following discussions and activities.

Discussion: Life in the State of Nature. Share a definition of the State of Nature - the absence of any government or authority to make or enforce rules and manage conflict. Using this definition, ask students to imagine life in the state of nature with the following questions:

• What might be some advantages and disadvantages of living in the state of nature?
• What might people who are smarter and stronger than others do?
• What might people who are weaker and less skilled than others do?
• Would people have rights? If so, what rights? How would they be protected?
• Would anyone have the right to govern anyone else?

Following the discussion, engage students in an activity that will deepen their understanding by requiring them to make and defend a choice.

Activity: Freedomland v. Leaderland. Invite students to imagine two separate lands. Tell them that they have the option of living in only one of the two lands. Ask, “will you choose:”

➢ Freedomland – where everyone experiences absolute liberty. There are no rules, laws, or government. People can do whatever they want whenever they want and are guided by their nature, needs, and desires. There is no agreed upon reward for “good” or “positive” behavior; there is no agreed upon punishment for “bad” or “harmful” behavior.

Or “will you choose:”

➢ Leaderland – where one leader determines what is best for the people. There are many rules and laws enforced by a powerful government. People possess no right to liberty and pursuit of interests and desires are discouraged. Order is prioritized to avoid conflict, minimize violence, and guarantee security.
Establish areas in the classroom that represent the respective lands. Then invite students to move, or migrate, to the land of their choice. (For instance, Freedomland may be on the left side of the classroom and Leaderland on the right side). Once in their respective lands, instruct students to practice active listening as they share why they chose their land, collaborate to form arguments that may persuade others to come to their land, and designate two individuals to present those arguments.

Next, invite the spokespersons for each land to share their arguments. First, one argument is presented from Freedomland; then one argument is presented from Leaderland. Explain that when anyone hears an argument that persuades them to change lands, they may do so by physically moving to the other land. Emphasize that this is an active listening activity. Debate and rebuttal should not be encouraged.

Finally, you may want to debrief the activity with the following questions:

• Were you frustrated by the restricted choice of ONLY Freedomland OR Leaderland? Why? What frustrated you?
• How can we balance the need for order and security with the desire for rights like freedom and individual liberty?
• Imagine a land in between Freedomland and Leaderland. What might that be like?

IV. HOW DO WE PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS?

Application: Natural Rights Philosophers. Once your students have imagined the state of nature in Freedomland v. Leaderland, have them consider the arguments and conclusions of three Natural Rights Philosophers. Then have the students apply their understanding of the philosopher with a series of discussion questions.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) - Hobbes imagined the state of nature in his most famous work, Leviathan (1651). Though he recognized the natural rights of life and liberty, Hobbes believed that man would selfishly and aggresively use liberty to create a condition of perpetual “war of every man against his neighbor,” where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” To avoid this condition, man would exchange his liberty for collective security by entering a social contract. Security would be provided by an all encompassing and powerful authoritarian, or Leviathan, which would rule by fear. (For more information view:
Thomas Hobbes and “Leviathan:” Ideas that Informed the American Founders, Part 25 or POLITICAL THEORY - Thomas Hobbes)

Questions:

• What right(s) did Hobbes recognize in man’s nature?
• What challenged or threatened those rights in the state of nature?
• How did Hobbes recommend protecting man’s natural rights?
• Would Hobbes have chosen Freedomland or Leaderland? Explain.
• Do you agree or disagree with the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes? Explain.

John Locke (1632-1704) - In his Second Treatise of Government (1689), Locke argued that the state of nature is governed by reason, which is the law of nature. Reason teaches that in nature, all are “free and independent” and that “no one ought to harm another in their life, liberty or estate [property].” However, because man is motivated by self-interest as often as reason, these natural rights are insecure. Consequently, man’s natural rights are best protected when people enter a social contract to create a government which represents and expresses the consent of the people while making and enforcing laws to secure the rights. (For more information see: John Locke and the State of Nature or John Locke, Natural Rights)

Questions:

• What right(s) did Locke recognize in man’s nature?
• What challenged or threatened those rights in the state of nature?
• How did Locke recommend protecting man’s natural rights?
• Would Locke have chosen Freedomland or Leaderland? Explain.
• Do you agree or disagree with the philosophy of John Locke? Explain.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) - Rousseau believed in the natural goodness of man. In The Social Contract (1763), he argued that in the state of nature, man sought understanding and was guided by morality, curiosity and empathy. However, when man entered into civilization, he was corrupted by unhealthy self-love, pride and vanity. He famously proclaimed that “man was born free, but is everywhere in chains.” To escape their “chains” and restore human goodness, Rousseau proposed a social contract whereby individuals would surrender their natural rights of liberty and property to a collective body of citizens who would make laws and a government which would enforce those laws. (For more information see: POLITICAL THEORY – Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Questions:

• What right(s) did Rousseau recognize in man’s nature?
• What challenged or threatened those rights?
• How did Rousseau recommend protecting man’s natural rights?
• Would Rousseau have chosen Freedomland or Leaderland? Explain.
• Do you agree or disagree with the philosophy of Jean Jacque Rousseau? Explain.

Application: Declaration of Independence (1776) - Natural Rights philosophers like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau greatly influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States in the Second Continental Congress. In 1776, they drafted and adopted the Declaration of Independence which turned a rebellion over the violation of colonial rights into a revolution for American Independence.

Have students read and discuss the following excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, which expresses beliefs about the origin of natural rights and the nature of a social contract that protects those rights. Then engage them in a discussion based on the questions that follow.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Questions:

• What “inalienable” natural rights are recognized in the Declaration of Independence?
• What is identified as the source of those rights?
• Who are the two sides of the social contract in the Declaration of Independence?
• What benefit do the people receive in the social contract? What responsibility do they assume?
• What benefit does the government receive? What responsibility do they assume?
• In your opinion, which Natural Right Philosopher had the greatest influence on the Declaration of Independence. Hobbes? Locke? Rousseau? Explain.

V. EXTENSION: The Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The treatises of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and the Declaration of Independence were profound and world changing documents. Nevertheless, they proposed theories and arguments about human rights with no enforcement powers. Concrete recognition and protection would require constitution and laws, as well as the development of cultures that internalized the belief that the rule of law should apply equally to every human being.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States were ratified on December 15, 1791. The Bill of Rights, as they came to be called, greatly expanded constitutional protection for individual rights. After World War II, an international committee led by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It was adopted by 48 nations in 1948 as a "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations." Though it is an aspirational document with limited enforcement powers (much like the Declaration of Independence), the UDHR has influenced legal, political, and cultural developments around the world.

Activity: Have students compare and contrast the Bill of Rights with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lead a discussion based on the following questions:

The Bill of Rights, 1791	Eleanor Rooseelt reviewing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

• Think back to the activity on categorizing human rights. What categories are recognized or emphasized in the Bill of Rights?
• What categories are recognized or emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is there a difference?
• Why do you think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists more rights?
• Do you recognize other differences between the two documents? If so, what are they?
• What do you think explains those differences?
• Which document do you think has had more influence?