Learning climate greatly affects student achievement. This qualitative study aimed to understand community definitions of climate; share lived experiences of students, faculty, and staff; and define priority areas of improvement in the University of Washington School of Public Health (UWSPH). Between March-May 2019, 17 focus group discussions were conducted–stratified by role and self-identified race/ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation–among 28 faculty/staff and 36 students. Topics included: assessing the current climate, recounting experiences related to roles and identities, and recommending improvements. Transcripts were coded using deductive and inductive approaches. Race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation appeared to affect perceptions of the climate, with nearly all respondents from underrepresented or minoritized groups recounting negative experiences related to their identity. Persons of color, women, and other respondents who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA) frequently perceived the climate as “uncomfortable.” Most felt that UWSPH operates within a structural hierarchy that perpetuates white, male, and/or class privilege and “protects those in power” while leaving underrepresented or minoritized groups feeling like “the way to move up… is to conform” in order to not be seen as “someone pushing against the system.” Improvement priorities included: increasing community responsiveness to diversity, equity, and inclusion; intentionally diversifying faculty/staff and student populations; designing inclusive curricula; and supporting underrepresented or minoritized groups academically, professionally, and psychologically.

No abstract

The U.N. Global Counterterrorism Strategy (A/RES/60/288) recognizes that the war on terror can only be won by protecting the rights of its victims. However, almost a decade since its adoption, the application of a human rights framework to the protection of the rights of victims of terrorism has been largely neglected. A 2012 report by U.N. Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson sought to address this inattention, recommending that member states provide reparations to victims of terrorism regardless of the question of State responsibility. While this application of a human rights framework to the discourse on terrorism victims' rights has been a breakthrough, the recommendations of the Emmerson report imply several thorny issues and fail to confront several key concepts embedded in its assumptions. Analyzing the international norms surrounding victims' rights vis-à-vis reparations and state responsibility, we posit that all member states indeed have the obligation to protect the rights of victims as human rights and provide avenues for redress. However, we argue that the narrow definition of terrorism in the Emmerson report that fails to include institutional or state terrorism leads to legal and normative questions about who its rightful victims are, who should be held responsible, and what the role of the state and international community is with regard to restitution. Such unresolved questions in international law could ultimately be detrimental to the