Higher education institutions (HEIs) have been traditionally understood to play a central role in economic development, the preparation of leaders, the development of research and discoveries, the influencing of public policy, and the understanding of the purpose of learning itself. A wider and deeper frame for HEIs, however, recognizes that they are engaged in a moral enterprise that can contribute to a society based on social justice. UNESCO’s Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education 2021) identified the importance of universities, colleges, and technical institutes in fostering values such as “respect, empathy, equality and solidarity” (p. 60) and promoting active citizenship to address the pressing needs of society. UNESCO has also called for human rights education to be offered, using pedagogies organized around participation and social transformation and involving an approach that recognizes multiple forms of knowledge.

In this article, I propose that reimagined universities should be institutions that are justice- and human rights-centered. A human rights mission incorporates conventional university policies oriented toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) but goes beyond this conventional framework by drawing attention to root causes of systemic violations of human rights (including violence within the university itself) and fostering inclusive processes of internal reform, oriented towards social justice involving especially the voices of the most marginalized.

Within the university’s intrinsic, powerful role of influencing society, critiques have arisen about the operation of higher education reflecting and promoting neoliberalism. Neoliberal impulses within higher education are characterized by a focus on profit and the “instrumental demands of the marketplace” (Hyslop-Margison & Saverese, 2012, p. 51). The neoliberal emphasis on individualism and consumerism serves to undermine universities as sites of democratic learning and social activism (Kingston, 2018). A human rights view of the university thus contrasts starkly with neoliberalism.

Human rights itself is not exempt from criticism. Critiques include human rights as being Eurocentric and Western in origin and serving “empire” as a “colonial” project through the use of human rights to reaffirm the political, economic, and military power of the Global North (Douzinas, 2007). Some critical scholars also maintain that the human rights regime facilitates the expansion and legitimation of neoliberal logics, thus contributing to the reproduction of inequalities and unequal geo‐political arrangements (del Cerro Santamaría, 2019). This article cannot provide a definitive response to these and other long-standing critiques. However, by exploring ways in which human rights can be explicitly embraced in a university, it seems possible to clarify how higher education might resist the legitimization of neoliberal logics that ultimately end up diminishing the parameters of the university to respect, protect, and promote human rights.

This article begins with a presentation of the application of the human rights framework to university settings, including binding legal standards, soft policies, and a holistic framework known as the human rights-based approach. A human rights-based approach means that the university explicitly embraces its role in improving the arc of social justice across all the work of the university: mission, governance structures, degree programs, research, engagement with partners, policies of inclusion and equity, and the environment on the campus. This approach also incorporates inclusive participatory processes for university change and a critical eye toward aspects of the university structure and history that may perpetuate human rights violations. The second part of this article applies the human rights-based approach to institutional change.

Human rights and the university

HEIs generate both public and private goods, cultivating a range of outcomes—material and immaterial—that benefit individual learners as well as the wider society. Currently, a variety of terms are used when discussing the public purpose of higher education (e.g., community engagement, civic engagement, education for democracy; Hartley et al., 2010, p. 404). These ideals are rooted in social justice, which is viewed as the dignified treatment of all people in society; the equitable distribution of opportunities, resources, and recognitions; and the advancement of local and global human rights cultures.

The premise of this article is that human rights standards specifically offer a legal and normative framework for guiding the university to take a role in respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights. The university is therefore both a subject of human rights (i.e., needing to reflect human rights in its modes of operation) and an agent for human rights (i.e., responsible for promoting human rights human rights and social justice within society at large). The following sections present binding and nonbinding human rights standards applicable to HEIs.

Progressive right to higher education

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR; UN General Assembly [UNGA], 1948) states in Article 26 that everyone has the right to education. The right to education is mentioned in, among other legal instruments, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR; UNGA, 1966) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC; UNGA, 1989). States are expected to progress in the realization of this right, including at the technical and professional levels, subject to the extent of available resources (Beiter, 2006). States are not obligated under human rights law to make higher education compulsory, and education does not necessarily need to be free. However, education should be affordable to all, according to Article 15 of the ICESCR. Moreover, states cannot backtrack on the provision of the right to education, for example, by reducing fees and then rescinding and raising them again.

Access to higher education and nondiscrimination

Access to higher education should be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit, according to the UDHR (UNGA, 1948, Article 26, para 1). The ICESCR General Comments 13 mentions that states should ensure that educational institutions and programs are accessible to everyone, without discrimination (UNGA, 1999, para 6[b][i]). The UNESCO World Declaration on Higher Education (1999) calls the attention of governments to the facilitation of access to higher education for women and for groups in vulnerable situations, such as Indigenous peoples, cultural and linguistic minorities, and persons with disabilities (Article 3, para [d]).

Nondiscrimination in relation to the right to education (including higher education), involves not only mechanisms to prevent preclusion from higher education studies on the basis of a prospective student’s individual characteristics unrelated to merit (e.g., being a female or a member of a religious minority) but also a proactive responsibility on the part of the state and individual universities to create opportunities for those prospective students who have “capacity” but perhaps less demonstrated merit, based on unequal access to quality education in earlier studies. Although states bear the primary responsibility for ensuring the right to (higher) education, other decision-makers, such as HEIs, are also accountable (Kotzmann, 2018). A human rights-centered approach thus promotes the principle that targeted efforts should be made to enhance access to the university by groups in vulnerable situations or those who may need accommodations to realize their capacity, such as learners with disabilities.

Human rights education

In addressing the right to education, the UDHR in Article 26 outlines the constructive role education should play in human development, respect for human rights in societies, and coexistence within and across nations. These broad-brush strokes on the role of education in promoting understanding and combating prejudice are reinforced in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD; UNGA, 1965) and numerous UNESCO documents, the sustainable development goals (SDGs), as well as the rights-based approach to education (UNESCO & UNICEF, 2007). Over the years, United Nations’(UN) bodies working in the education sector (UNESCO, UNICEF, and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR]) have passed nonbinding declarations and elaborated guidelines to promote tolerance and coexistence, as well as human rights, peace, and fundamental freedoms. (See The UNESCO Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-Operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974), currently being revised, the UNESCO Declaration of Principles of Tolerance (1995), and the Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy (1994)).

Human rights education has evolved into a policy field within the UN, most recently with the Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (UNGA, 2011), which calls on states to provide access to information on human rights. There is now a permanent and ongoing World Programme for Human Rights Education (UNGA, 2004). In line with these principles, the integration of human rights education within higher education should include knowledge about relevant international and regional human rights standards. It should be carried out in a way that reflects the core human rights value of equality (i.e., the inalienable equal worthiness of every human being) and other human rights values, including dignity, freedom, and inclusion. Ultimately, human rights education should result in learners being motivated to respect, promote, and protect human rights and to experience human rights as relevant to their daily lives.

Human rights-based approach

A human rights-based approach to HEI encompasses the aforementioned international human rights standards but also provides a holistic framework of human rights principles, including participation and inclusion (especially in decision-making); nondiscrimination and equality; capacity development related to understanding, respecting, promoting, and fulfilling rights (for all members of the university community); and accountability. As stated earlier, these principles apply across the work of the university: mission, governance structures, degree programs, research, engagement with partners, policies of inclusion and equity, and the environment on the campus.

DEI efforts are commonplace in universities in the Global North and Global South, and associated policies and practices are key contributions to a human rights-based approach. However, a human rights framework goes further, drawing attention to justice within the deep, systemic organization of HEIs (UNESCO-IESALC, 2022) and the potential for transformation. Moreover, processes for such change must be highly inclusive, especially of marginalized voices.

Human rights-based approach to institutional change at the university

This section overviews the types and areas of potential change within HEIs. These might be treated as a menu of sorts for the ways in which the university can transform to strengthen its role as a human rights actor. Each university environment is unique historically, culturally, politically and administratively, of course, and each change agent will need to assess these features of the university context when identifying opportunities and strategies for change.

Change is a concept with highly divergent understandings. The human rights-based approach is aligned with transformational changes. Hartley et al. (2010), in analyzing civic engagement efforts in higher education, distinguished between first-order change and second-order change. The former does not change fundamental organizational aims, structures, and roles. Second-order change, by contrast, can be seen as “transformational” and is characterized by changes that (a) alter the culture of the institution by changing select underlying assumptions and institutional behaviors, processes, and products; (b) are deep and pervasive, affecting the whole institution; (c) are intentional; and (d) occur over time (p. 403).

Badat (2009) established what can be seen as a spectrum for the intent and nature of change, ranging from “improvement”’ (limited or minor changes in an existing policy, organization, or practice) to “transformation” (involving a disruption and recreation of old structures, institutions, and practices). Somewhere in between is “reform”, which refers to changes that are substantive but that remain “circumscribed within the existing dominant social relations within higher education, and also within the wider social relations in the polity, economy and society” (p. 456).

In further sharpening the conceptual landscape of change in relation to higher education, Stein (2019) differentiated between three theories of change: minor reform, major reform, and beyond reform. These three theories correspond to different emphases on change, and consequently offer different understandings about what a transformed higher education landscape could look like. The first, minor reform, emphasizes “doing differently” through improvement and progress. Minor reformists, therefore, argue for the reclamation of the public good role of the university through diversifying the system and bringing in more stakeholders. The second, major reform, emphasizes “knowing differently”. Major reformists argue for radically altering the existing epistemic landscape through redistribution, democratization, and expansion. In contrast, the third theory, beyond reform, emphasizes “being differently”. This theory encapsulates a less clear, certain, and assured approach to change and argues that deep and sustained change is messy, collective, and undefined. A central tenet of beyond reform, then, is limitation—grasping and grappling with the limits of existing structures and relations. Beyond reformists therefore seek to dismantle rather than alter the existing higher education landscape and to move beyond how we know it. This major reform, aligned with the transformational changes identified by Badat (2009) and aspects of the second-order reform by Hartley et al. (2010), speaks to changes that differ in degree and kind, as compared with other reform efforts.

A human rights-based approach to HEI change—one that might potentially address the systemic challenges of neoliberalism—calls for such transformation beyond reform. Can transformation be accomplished through a progressive set of reforms? Or does this reimagining involve critiques of deep structure and institutional practices, with change processes that are messy and open-ended?

How one answers this depends upon personal positioning and interest regarding how to engage in change as well as the context of the HEI itself. Within each university environment, human rights-oriented reformers certainly would want to be attentive to any first- or second-order changes being positioned to lead to transformation.

In contemplating such processes, it may be useful to consider potential areas for change. Categories of university life where one might envision the infusion of human rights include but are not restricted to mission, institutional and governance structures, policies, curriculum, research, employee training, campus culture, and engagement with partners. Illustrations of human rights-centered approaches to each of these categories are offered below.

First, human rights can be seen as part of the core mission of the university, with the transformational role of the university recognized by its members and stakeholders. A HEI that is human rights centered might develop a human rights code of conduct for all members of the university community, and organize training in the human rights-based approach and basic human rights literacy for all university faculty and staff.

There are numerous ways that a human rights-based approach might be incorporated within governance structures and policies. A university might, for instance, develop a human rights action plan and appoint a human rights ombudsperson. An effort could be made for decision-making practices to be more democratic, inclusive, and transparent. Admission policies and financial support could ensure accessibility to higher education by groups in vulnerable situations and, similarly, hiring policies could help guarantee the presence of groups in vulnerable situations/minority groups among faculty and staff, particularly in visible and higher-level positions.

Human rights education is one obvious strategy for bringing a human rights-based approach into university curriculum and pedagogy. However, other practices include the recognition of other forms of knowledge and working in multiple languages. Pedagogy and learner assessment should be participatory, diverse, and culturally sensitive. Coursework and degree programs should reflect the perspectives and interests of minorities and groups in vulnerable situations.

Research contributes to the understanding of human rights and potentially contributes to human rights changes. Open access to research reflects human rights principles. University research centers and individual faculty members’ research should work collaboratively with those in vulnerable situations, with research contributing to knowledge and understanding that directly benefits such groups.

The human rights-based approach recognizes that campus culture and student life should focus on human rights and affirm the cultures of all students, especially those who are vulnerable. There should be safe mechanisms for registering complaints related to the human rights of university community members. In keeping with decoloniality and anti-racism efforts, any offensive cultural symbols that do not reflect the values of human rights should be removed.

Finally, in keeping with the position of the university as a contributing member of society, there should be meaningful, sustained and mutually beneficial relationships with community organizations. Such partnerships should be co-led and result in reciprocal benefits.

Conclusion

A human rights-based approach to higher education is ultimately a humanistic vision that calls on universities to be accountable to the demand for affordable education, respond to increased student diversity and mobility (including refugees and stateless persons), resist neoliberal logics, and embrace the role of the university in promoting human rights and fostering social justice in society. This means that a human rights-based approach to higher education may offer a new and vital platform for critiquing national and cross-national tertiary practices and a vision for future societies based on social justice.

As many countries struggle with antidemocratic forces, the role of the university in reinforcing values such as human rights, nondiscrimination, and civic engagement has never been more vital. In the wake of neoliberal higher education practices that emphasize transferable skills and competencies for the marketplace, including those related to global capitalism, universities and university systems across the world need to be reminded of their role in respecting, protecting, and promoting human rights for all. Human rights should be part of the new social contract for education.

The power of human rights rests on the acceptance of rights as binding norms by actors, and the clarity of these norms for influencing critique and practice. As a first step, it is therefore essential to build within the university a common understanding of what a human rights-based approach means and to recognize that this approach brings added value to the work of the university as well as help it achieve its goal to respect, protect, and promote human rights.

Some actions and influences that might be undertaken as part of a human rights-based plan of action at the university include executive-level mandates and policies, temporary consultative commissions and task forces, departmental decision-making processes, student/faculty activism, referendums and surveys, monitoring and evaluation processes, higher education networks, civil society and community influences, and government regulations.

All these and other activities should be grounded in inclusive, participatory processes involving dialogue and consensus building among university stakeholders and constituencies, with amplification of the voices of marginalized groups. Such a conversation might begin with an understanding of what human rights are and what it means to respect, protect, and promote human rights in the university setting in ways consistent with international human rights standards. These critical conversations should be oriented not only toward reform but ultimately for deep transformation, enabling the university to realize a human rights and social justice mission.