Judgment Day

A government's respect for human rights can be scored, and the man who gives out these grades shared his methods at a lecture Tuesday in the Konover Auditorium of the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center.

The annual Visiting Gladstein Lecture aims to "educate future generations about the importance of human rights," according to Gary Gladstein, for whom the lecture is named. The lecture also emphasizes the growing regard for the field of human rights on campus as UConn establishes itself as a leader in the subject.

This year's guest for the 10th annual lecture was David L. Richards, the co-director of the Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project that annually rates 15 internationally recognized human rights in more than 195 countries. His talk, "If you want a Higher Score, Then Treat Your Citizens Better: The Practice and Politics of Rating Government Respect For Human Rights," illuminated the extensive and fascinating process Richards and his colleagues use to accurately assess, score and understand how human rights are adhered to and abused worldwide.

Measuring human rights, according to Richards, is no easy feat. It is an abstract concept and so determining a scale for it proved one of Richards' greatest challenges. "No matter what you measure, you have to have a conceptualization," he said in his lecture. "It starts with an understanding of the world. If you screw up on [conceptualization], then the numbers are worthless."

Richards' concept involves undergraduate students, graduate students and senior staff members "coding" independently of one another based upon qualitative observations to make quantitative assessments. They judge the state of countries based upon the systematic approach of pitting the countries against a set standard, not against each other. To ensure accuracy, the coders compare answers afterward to determine a final score.

Richards' admits the system has flaws. "Sometimes, people get emotionally overwhelmed reading about people suffering. It's an emotionally connecting experience," he said.

Problems aside, the system has proved effective. "Everyone has their own opinions and there's lots of grey areas, but with this, you can have a definite start on where to work from," said Amy Blodgett, a 5th-semester psychology major. The project uses a scale of zero to eight that rates a country's respect of human rights. A score of zero indicates no respect for a certain human right,which can be anything from torture to economic freedom, and a score of eight indicates a full respect for the human right.

"These scales can show in the future if the value of human rights increases or decreases," said Michael Donohue, a 3rd-semester journalism major.

Richards emphasized how human rights tend to stay consistent over time, so abrupt changes raise questions. Not only does he search for answers when he sees disturbances in the numbers, but so do the leaders of nations who get low scores. Richards cited an e-mail he received from the assistant to the leader of Tonga asking why Tonga earned a 0 in women's rights and if they could clarify their commitment to equality. In a testament to Richards' devotion to remaining unbiased, he told them they should simply "treat their citizens better."

"Officials are always trying to look their best for their country and trying to improve their status in the world," said Donohue in regards to the fairness Richards upholds.

The lecture concluded with ways to reduce our "human rights footprint." Whether it's by boycotting companies that exploit their workers or simply by raising awareness, Richards stressed keeping an eye on the bigger picture. Improving scores worldwide goes beyond governmental action and extends to reducing the human rights footprint at the local level.