Holocaust Education Evolves as Number of Survivors Declines

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: This article about Holocaust education, written by Mike Enright, originally appeared in UConn Today.

Like members of the Greatest Generation, living Holocaust survivors provide a powerful tool in teaching students about the past.

A Holocaust survivor is filmed as part of The Forever Project.
A Holocaust survivor is filmed as part of The Forever Project. (Photo courtesy of The National Holocaust Centre and Museum)

As the world moves further in time from the horrific events that took place in Europe during World War II, the number of survivors from the Holocaust continues to decline. Like the members of the Greatest Generation, living Holocaust survivors provide a uniquely effective tool in teaching students about the past, creating a challenge for educators as their numbers diminish.

It’s a particularly urgent challenge, as the Holocaust is one of the most common historic events used and cited by politicians, the media, and popular culture as a comparison to contemporary issues. The recent controversy over a Tennessee county school board’s removal of the graphic novel Maus from its eighth-grade curriculum illustrates how potent the Holocaust remains as a political subject, particularly within a school setting.

“When someone feels like their rights are being violated or the government is overstepping their bounds, they’ll cite the Holocaust, which is very dangerous,”

— Associate Professor Alan Marcus

Marcus recently was part of a team that produced a research study that was published in Holocaust Studies that examined the transition of Holocaust education from live to virtual survivor testimony. Marcus also wrote a column for The Conversation on the issue.

“The Holocaust is being trivialized today, and that undercuts the purpose of Holocaust education,” he says. “It’s not the way in which educators or historians want the Holocaust to be used.

“One of the powers of listening to a Holocaust survivor is that they can speak from their personal experiences, and that becomes a very powerful education tool,” he says. “At some point, we are not going to have survivors to speak. World War II is becoming an era of learned memory, as opposed to lived memory. We can learn about it, but we can no longer talk to people who were there.”

This transition has a particularly strong effect on Holocaust education and the effect that live survivor testimony has on students.

“Live testimony of Holocaust survivors bucks the trend in everything we know in education terms,” says Gary Mills, an associate professor of education at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, who was another member of the research team. “Survivors might talk for an hour, an hour and a half, and young people normally get quite fidgety and distracted in a talk that long. There is something about survivor testimony where the students sit and are riveted and silent. It has a major impact on them.”

Marcus and Mills have a history of working on projects together dating back to 2012 when they were connected by colleagues. Marcus coordinates a study abroad program for UConn students at Nottingham, and Mills is an instructor in that program.

Holocaust museums around the United States and the world are trying to address the challenge by creating virtual interviews and presentations as a way to teach future generations of students.

“The power of people is really important, and Holocaust survivors help develop empathy, and empathy is a very important part of Holocaust education,” says Marcus. “As we shift from live survivors to virtual ones, we are going to be missing out on some of that power of people. But we are trying to get what we can capture, and have it stay as a trustworthy source even if the live person isn’t there.”

Holocaust education does need to be based on more than just survivor testimony – whether it be live or virtual.

“If you only study the Holocaust from the perspective of the survivors, you are missing out on a lot of context,” says Marcus. “As I am training teachers, one of the first things I do is talk to them about the different perspectives of the Holocaust. We tend to hear about survivors and victims and also the perpetrators. But, then we talk about the rescuers and the resistors. We explore about eight or nine different roles. There is a lot of curiosity about the perception that survivors didn’t fight back or run away. Survivors really represent a small percent of the people involved in the Holocaust, and are not necessarily representative of everything that happened during these events.”

Holocaust education has been a requirement in British school curriculums since the 1990s. A handful of states in the United States, including Connecticut, make it a required offering in K-12 schools.

“The Holocaust is a unique event that is really morally complex and a good learning opportunity,” says Marcus. “When the Connecticut state legislature voted on requiring Holocaust education, it was unanimous. That hardly ever happens. They heard from a Holocaust survivor and it made a big connection to the events of today. We have an increase in hate crimes and an increase in antisemitic acts. All that data was shared, and that’s what led to the unanimous vote. I think people see the power in the lessons of the Holocaust.”

Olympic Athletes: 5 Questions America Needs to Ask About Athlete Activism

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: Sport management instructor and collaborator with the UConn Human Rights Institute Eli Wolff responds to questions about Olympic athlete activism, which originally appeared in UConn Today.

Athlete holds up sign next to Olympic Rings.
A Tibetan activist from the Students for a Free Tibet association holds a banner during a protest in front of the International Olympic Committee headquarters ahead of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, in December 2021 in Lausanne. Human rights campaigners and exiles accuse Beijing of religious repression and massively curtailing rights in Tibet. (Photo by Valentin Flauraud/AFP via Getty Images)

As the Winter Olympics begin in Beijing, questions are answered about how free athletes are to express their political and moral beliefs.

Athletes are frequently encouraged to stay silent when it comes to their political or moral beliefs. Six years ago, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick chose to not stand during the national anthem at the start of NFL games to protest police brutality and racial inequity in the United States. He has not played a game of professional football since Jan. 1, 2017, only five months after his protest began.

Kaepernick was not the first, nor last, athlete to experience the sometimes fierce backlash that can occur when sports figures in the spotlight share their beliefs with the world. Today, the opening ceremonies of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Bejing, China will take place, in a climate of intense criticism directed at the host nation. China has been accused of persecuting Uyghur Muslims and Tibetans, cracking down on pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, and threatening military conflict over the status of Taiwan. Athletes from around the world arriving in Beijing face a difficult decision over whether and when it’s appropriate to express their beliefs about these and other issues.

Recently, UConn Today spoke with Eli Wolff, Neag School of Education Sport Management instructor and sport and human rights expert. Wolff offers his perspective on how and why athletes are being silenced, what they can do to combat this, and ultimately, what needs to shift to allow athletes to perform their job, but also exercise their right to free expression.

In an ideal world, how could Olympic/Paralympic athletes use the world stage presented by the Games to share their personal/political beliefs in a respectful manner?

Olympic and Paralympic athletes can be encouraged and supported to use their platforms to express their personal and political beliefs for human rights and social justice. Olympic and Paralympic athletes must be provided their right to freedom of expression as outlined in Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Olympic and Paralympic athletes can express their views and beliefs in all forms and formats, including but not limited to verbal, written, and social media. Not all Olympic and Paralympic athletes will want to share their views, but those athletes that choose to do so, even if it is only a few, must be protected. Of course, Olympic and Paralympic athletes must not be tolerated for hate speech, but promoting human rights and social justice must be supported by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Paralympic Committee (IPC), in line with Olympic and Paralympic values and the Olympic Charter Principles of Olympism.

Olympic and Paralympic athletes that are expressing their personal and political views and promoting human rights and social justice in connection with making the world a better place through sport must be celebrated rather than punished. Promoting human rights and social justice in and through sport is a positive contribution, and it is very good to engage in this way. The IOC and IPC must shift their perspective to recognize the human right to freedom of expression as a very positive contribution to the Olympic and Paralympic Movement and to the world.

Why and how are Olympic/Paralympic athletes continually forced to silence themselves to continue participating in their given sport?

Eli Wolff
“Athlete activism has come to the forefront of sport in the last 10 years, and particularly in the last two years since the murder of George Floyd,” says Eli Wolff, Neag School of Education sport management instructor. “Very much inspired by John Carlos, Tommie Smith, Muhammad Ali, and others, we are seeing athlete activism as a more prominent topic and area of exploration.”

Olympic and Paralympic athletes are currently discouraged by the IOC and IPC from speaking up about human rights and social justice topics and issues. Olympians and Paralympians are not technically and literally forced to stay silent, but there is a culture of power and control and policies, such as IOC Rule 50 and IPC Section 2.2, that limit and do not encourage the freedom of expression that is guaranteed in Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Ironically, the Olympic and Paralympic Movement has a partnership with the United Nations, and claims to promote human rights in the Olympic Charter, but rather than encouraging a holistic approach toward freedom of expression, Olympic and Paralympic athletes are limited in how and when they can speak and communicate their views and opinions. Olympians and Paralympians from the United States are protected by the United Sates Olympic and Paralympic Committee, but the IOC and the IPC still outline restrictions and limitations while at the Olympic and the Paralympic Games. Hopefully, soon the IOC and IPC will embrace freedom of expression as a complementary value to the Olympic and Paralympic values and the Olympic Charter Principles of Olympism.

In the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos famously raised their fists in a Black Power salute during the playing of the US national anthem during the medal ceremony. How has activism among athletes evolved since then?

Athlete activism has come to the forefront of sport in the last 10 years, and particularly in the last two years since the murder of George Floyd. Very much inspired by John Carlos, Tommie Smith, Muhammad Ali, and others, we are seeing athlete activism as a more prominent topic and area of exploration. When I established the Athletes for Human Rights project with several colleagues in 2006, and when I wrote “Playing and Protesting: Sport as a Vehicle for Social Change” with Peter Kaufman in 2010, there was very little activity and engagement, and now there is a diversity and tapestry of athlete activism around the world. We are seeing athlete activism across topics and issues and utilizing a variety of tactics and approaches. Some athlete activism is in the form of social and political protest, some athlete activism is through writing and creative expression, some athlete activism is through education and knowledge sharing, and some athlete activism is through service, philanthropy, and community engagement. The spectrum of athlete activism is broad and deep and is very much emerging as a central and important part of sports culture nationally and globally.

What is the latest on the responses of the International Olympic Committee and International Paralympic Committee to calls that their rules around political demonstrations at the Games be amended? 

The IOC and IPC have indicated that they will review IOC Rule 50 and IPC Section 2.2 after Beijing 2022. The IOC has communicated that it will share an IOC human rights strategy following Beijing. During Tokyo 2021, over 150 experts and athletes signed a letter to the IOC and IPC regarding IOC Rule 50 and IPC Section 2.2. Leading up to Beijing 2020, there are several initiatives, including a Human Rights Watch organized call to action, and a call led by the Uyghur Human Rights Project, that are promoting human rights and freedom of expression. Hopefully, following Beijing 2022 there will be organized and coordinated efforts to follow up with the IOC and IPC. Perhaps, as we wrote on Dec. 10, 2021, for Human Rights Day, there can also be an initiative by the UN Human Rights Council to establish Special Procedures experts on sport and human rights.

What is the impact of the US, Canada, UK, and Australia not sending political dignitaries to the Winter Olympics? Is that sending the right message about China’s policies in Xijiang?

It is a significant symbolic statement. It is definitely very important for governments to take this position. Most importantly, it will hopefully impact efforts and work following Beijing 2022.

Eli A. Wolff is an instructor with the Neag School of Education’s Sport Management program at the University of Connecticut. Wolff, a collaborator with the UConn Human Rights Institute and Dodd Impact , also directs the Power of Sport Lab, a platform to fuel and magnify creativity, diversity, connection, and leadership through sport. Eli serves as a coordinator of the Athletes and Social Change forum and program with the Muhammad Ali Center. Wolff was a member of the United States Soccer Team in the 1996 and 2004 Paralympic Games. He is a graduate of Brown University and has an MA in Olympic Studies from the German Sport University of Cologne. In October, Wolff hosted a Neag School of Education panel with an Olympic athlete, a Paralympic athlete, and an expert in the field to discuss the topic of human rights and the Games.