I first joined Amnesty International as a first-year, newly soaked in the importance of social justice. Now as the president, I still believe that Amnesty International is distinctly Brandeisian, as we try to educate and remedy human rights violations regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. Nevertheless, the number of my Brandeis peers who oppose the organization consistently surprises me. I have been told by liberals and conservatives alike that the organization is “too political” for them to be involved with. It is not that people do not care about human rights—I do not think I have ever met a Brandeisian who will tell me they do not think that human rights are socially just. It is the organization, the actual process of fighting for the very rights they claim to be so important, that they object to as too political. 

This surprises me because human rights are irrevocably political causes. “Political” according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as “relating to the public affairs of a country.” There are few things that relate more directly to the public affairs of a country than the welfare of its citizens. Today, though, the word “political” instead connotes something bad. We think of self-described “political” people as taking and defending a side so polarized, it is offensive. I can’t help but think this definition has something to do with the markedly partisan state of American politics. We are so often worried about being perceived as too uncouthly political that we may choose not to participate in any sort of political discourse. 

Yet, the fight for human rights will offend some people, because it means that it calls upon all cultures to adopt some universal morals. Guaranteeing human rights means that we cross cultural bounds in ways some may not be comfortable with, such as taking a firm stance that female genital mutilation is unequivocally wrong, despite the cultural place it holds in North African countries. Furthermore, fighting for human rights means threatening stasis. Countries that abscond the rights of their citizens do not usually give them back peacefully, meaning that fighting for human rights often involves conflict. I think this is what makes people particularly squeamish. Involving your nation in an international conflict is a calculated risk that leaves one open to criticism and the tragic national consequences that come with war. It is undeniably “political.” But if we are unwilling to risk being offensive in exchange for basic rights for all humankind, then we are failing miserably. 

As a signee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the list of all the rights guaranteed to us upon birth, the U.S. has a responsibility to take action. The lives of our fellow humans are far more important than any sort of self-interest. Our country is excellent at ignoring major world crises in order to preserve our own interests. A particularly salient example is the American government’s failure to help prevent the Rwandan Genocide during the Clinton administration. U.S. government documents declassified in 2004, show that  President Bill Clinton’s administration knew unequivocally of ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. Nonetheless, the U.S. government refused to take a strong stance; Clinton did not want to deal with the public relations nightmare that would have accompanied this multi-national conflict, offending France and drawing parallels to Somalia. The US declined to call the conflict a genocide because taking a strong stance meant they would have to act. 

Estimates of the death toll in the Rwandan Genocide now reach around two million, according to the United Kingdom nongovernmental organization Survivor’s Fund. To put that number in perspective, imagine the entire city of Chicago being ruthlessly decimated. Only 1,000 U.S. or NATO troops likely would have completely stopped the violence.  Both Republicans and Democrats petitioned for Clinton to send troops. Even recognizing the genocide would have done wonders in mobilizing the international community to respond. The U.S. is, unfortunately or fortunately, an example for other countries. In fact, many modern scholars such as the national policy scholar William Ferroggiaro, believe that the inability of the international community to recognize the conflict as a full-blown genocide was the greatest stumbling block in stopping the violence. Yet, our country decided that inaction was better than action, and lives were lost as a result. 

This is a trend that continues today. As a generation, we are becoming more moderate, in our quest not to offend and not to judge. We look for nuanced stances, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, using that moderation as an excuse from participating in politics altogether results in clear negative consequences. For example, according to the New York Times, only 51 percent of millennials turned out to vote at the 2012 election. Not voting, even if we do not see a place for ourselves in the traditional Republican-Democrat binary, only allows the continuation of the very situations we are protesting by not acting. This is a form of cowardice. Having an opinion, and then not standing up for it, is possibly worse than not having an opinion in the first place.

It is even more dangerous when we carry this attitude over to human rights. Human rights are not inherently a controversial topic. Although human rights are traditionally considered in the domain of the left, Glen Chesir ’15 wrote an op-ed in this section two weeks ago arguing that the government has both a fiscal and political reason for being involved in international affairs. I would like to add that we also have a moral responsibility to embroil ourselves in the concerns of others. So, if human rights are not a political issue by the left or the right, then they are being made into a political pariah by our generation, paralyzed by being politically correct, justly sensitive, and rationally moderate. 

But to ever guarantee that all humans have the rights more than 150 countries (including our own) have agreed they deserve, we must be offensive. We must be unpopular. We must pressure politicians to make changes, get involved in affairs that may be messy and may not be our own, and start fixing the problem one injustice at a time. 

Otherwise, no change will be made, and we are all responsible for that.