Elsadig Elsheikh
Elsadig Elsheikh is the Director of the Global Justice Program at the Othering & Belonging Institute (formerly Haas Institute) at the University of California, Berkeley, where he oversees the program’s projects on corporate power, food systems, forced migration, inclusiveness index, Islamophobia, and human rights mechanisms; and manages the Shahidi Project and the Nile Project.
Elsadig's research interests focus on the themes and socio-political dynamics related to state and citizenship; race and corporate power; and measuring social policies of exclusion and inclusion. Elsadig authored and co-authored a number of articles, essays, and reports on corporate power and the food system, Islamophobia, forced migration, inclusiveness index, Trans-Pacific Partnership, UN human rights mechanisms, and Sudanese politics.
Prior to the Othering & Belonging Institute, Elsadig led the international program at the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, where he also served as an associate editor of the Institute’s journal, Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary in Global Contexts. Earlier, Elsadig was a researcher with the European Economic Community, Amnesty International, Witness for Peace, and various international grassroots and advocacy organizations on issues related to internal displaced persons, Indigenous peoples, human rights, immigration, social mobilization, and environmental and social justice in Sudan, Greece, Colombia, and the United States. Elsadig holds degrees and trainings from Panteion University/Athens, Greece, the Ohio State University/Ohio, SIT Graduate Institute/Vermont, and Columbia University/New York.
Supervisors: Program Director
Address: Berkeley, California, United States
Elsadig's research interests focus on the themes and socio-political dynamics related to state and citizenship; race and corporate power; and measuring social policies of exclusion and inclusion. Elsadig authored and co-authored a number of articles, essays, and reports on corporate power and the food system, Islamophobia, forced migration, inclusiveness index, Trans-Pacific Partnership, UN human rights mechanisms, and Sudanese politics.
Prior to the Othering & Belonging Institute, Elsadig led the international program at the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, where he also served as an associate editor of the Institute’s journal, Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary in Global Contexts. Earlier, Elsadig was a researcher with the European Economic Community, Amnesty International, Witness for Peace, and various international grassroots and advocacy organizations on issues related to internal displaced persons, Indigenous peoples, human rights, immigration, social mobilization, and environmental and social justice in Sudan, Greece, Colombia, and the United States. Elsadig holds degrees and trainings from Panteion University/Athens, Greece, the Ohio State University/Ohio, SIT Graduate Institute/Vermont, and Columbia University/New York.
Supervisors: Program Director
Address: Berkeley, California, United States
less
Uploads
Papers by Elsadig Elsheikh
This publication is part of the Global Justice Program's Human Rights Agenda report series. In this series, we collaborate with other human rights, civil rights, and civil society organizations under the umbrella of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) to advance the utility of the rights-based framework as a meaningful organizing tool for impacted communities and social movements to articulate claims of social, cultural, and political rights, and belonging. Our reports are reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Council, and inform the UN's recommendations to hold the US Government and legislative bodies accountable to their obligations as related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Reports (Othering & Belonging Inst., UC Berkeley) by Elsadig Elsheikh
This publication is part of the Global Justice Program's Human Rights Agenda report series. In this series, we collaborate with other human rights, civil rights, and civil society organizations under the umbrella of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN), to advance the utility of the rights-based framework as a meaningful organizing tool for impacted communities and social movements to articulate claims of social, cultural, political rights, and belonging. Our reports are reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and inform the UN's recommendations to hold the US Government and legislative body accountable to their obligations as related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This publication is part of the Global Justice Program's Human Rights Agenda report series. In this series, we collaborate with other human rights, civil rights, and civil society organizations under the umbrella of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) to advance the utility of the rights-based framework as a meaningful organizing tool for impacted communities and social movements to articulate claims of social, cultural, and political rights, and belonging. Our reports are reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Council, and inform the UN's recommendations to hold the US Government and legislative bodies accountable to their obligations as related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The Global Justice Program (GJP) seeks to unmask the multiplicities of Islamophobia in the US that are influencing legal, political, and social domains, ranging from anti-Muslim legislation to the dramatic increase in coordinated anti-Muslim campaigns that have proliferated across the country. The information provided in this submission is sourced from original research conducted by the GJP, such as our database documenting anti-Sharia state legislation, expert interviews, and reports that serve to counter the effects of Islamophobia. The research specifically studies and addresses how Muslim communities in the US are directly impacted by anti-Muslim policies and practices such as the Travel Ban and anti-Sharia legislation, and how these policies, in addition to disproportionately discriminating against Muslims, are undermining the US Constitution and US international obligations.
To what extent do societies, fracturing along these dimensions of difference, strive or even successfully bridge these social cleavages with fair and inclusive policies? In this, our fifth annual Inclusiveness Index report, we strive to answer this question, not simply by reference to particular policies or initiatives, but by examining the data to track how marginalized populations actually fare relative to dominant groups.
The Othering & Belonging Institute's Inclusiveness Index is one of the first indices that measures equity without regard for national wealth or economic conditions. One of the challenges in measuring inclusivity is that it is difficult to disentangle policies aimed at inclusivity from the investments and resources available to marginalized communities. They are often the same and can be conflated. We surmount this challenge by focusing on policies, laws, and outcomes rather than government expenditures or investments. The Inclusiveness Index is uniquely focused on the degree of inclusion and marginality rather than a more general assessment of group-based well-being.
In addition to assessing how inclusive various societies are, the Inclusiveness Index serves as a diagnostic tool. It helps us identify places and societies that are improving, in terms of developing a more inclusive polity and set of institutions, and those places where societies are fracturing and becoming more divided along these lines. The data tells the main story, but we also seek to surface stories and trends that lie beneath the data.
In our conception, inclusiveness entails access to power and public and private resources, and it improves the way society views marginalized group members. Inclusivity is realized when historically or currently marginalized groups feel valued, when differences are respected, and when basic and fundamental needs and rights- relative to those societies' dominant groups-are met and recognized. Our index focuses on social groups rather than individuals, as marginality often occurs as a result of a group membership.
We operationalize this definition of "inclusivity" by focusing primarily on the performance of groups that span salient social cleavages, such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. We realize that such an approach cannot fully account for the unquantifiable or more qualitative aspects of belonging and inclusivity. For that reason, each version of the Inclusiveness Index report highlights stories and themes that go beyond the data.
Thus, each issue looks for patterns or stories that lay behind the data and touch on issues of inclusivity both across the globe and within the United States. Our 2016 report examined the global migrant crisis. Our 2017 report focused on the rise of ethnonationalism. Our 2018 report surveyed the reckoning brought about by the global #MeToo movement and the growing global water crises. For 2019 we took a closer look at the role of social media in spreading hate and falsehoods, and how global leaders are responding. And in this 2020 report, we focus on the responses nationally, and globally, to the COVID-19 crisis.
As always, a word of caution: our rankings are not the final word on inclusivity nor a definitive assessment of any national or state performance. Rather, they are intended to spark a conversation and generate further inquiry into how and why some places, communities, and nations are more inclusive than others.
Please be sure to send us your suggestions, feedback, and ideas. Additional information about this project, including past reports and downloadable data files, is available at belonging.berkeley.edu/inclusivenessindex.
This publication is part of the Global Justice Program's Human Rights Agenda report series. In this series, we collaborate with other human rights, civil rights, and civil society organizations under the umbrella of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) to advance the utility of the rights-based framework as a meaningful organizing tool for impacted communities and social movements to articulate claims of social, cultural, and political rights, and belonging. Our reports are reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Council, and inform the UN's recommendations to hold the US Government and legislative bodies accountable to their obligations as related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This publication is part of the Global Justice Program's Human Rights Agenda report series. In this series, we collaborate with other human rights, civil rights, and civil society organizations under the umbrella of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN), to advance the utility of the rights-based framework as a meaningful organizing tool for impacted communities and social movements to articulate claims of social, cultural, political rights, and belonging. Our reports are reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and inform the UN's recommendations to hold the US Government and legislative body accountable to their obligations as related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This publication is part of the Global Justice Program's Human Rights Agenda report series. In this series, we collaborate with other human rights, civil rights, and civil society organizations under the umbrella of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) to advance the utility of the rights-based framework as a meaningful organizing tool for impacted communities and social movements to articulate claims of social, cultural, and political rights, and belonging. Our reports are reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Council, and inform the UN's recommendations to hold the US Government and legislative bodies accountable to their obligations as related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The Global Justice Program (GJP) seeks to unmask the multiplicities of Islamophobia in the US that are influencing legal, political, and social domains, ranging from anti-Muslim legislation to the dramatic increase in coordinated anti-Muslim campaigns that have proliferated across the country. The information provided in this submission is sourced from original research conducted by the GJP, such as our database documenting anti-Sharia state legislation, expert interviews, and reports that serve to counter the effects of Islamophobia. The research specifically studies and addresses how Muslim communities in the US are directly impacted by anti-Muslim policies and practices such as the Travel Ban and anti-Sharia legislation, and how these policies, in addition to disproportionately discriminating against Muslims, are undermining the US Constitution and US international obligations.
To what extent do societies, fracturing along these dimensions of difference, strive or even successfully bridge these social cleavages with fair and inclusive policies? In this, our fifth annual Inclusiveness Index report, we strive to answer this question, not simply by reference to particular policies or initiatives, but by examining the data to track how marginalized populations actually fare relative to dominant groups.
The Othering & Belonging Institute's Inclusiveness Index is one of the first indices that measures equity without regard for national wealth or economic conditions. One of the challenges in measuring inclusivity is that it is difficult to disentangle policies aimed at inclusivity from the investments and resources available to marginalized communities. They are often the same and can be conflated. We surmount this challenge by focusing on policies, laws, and outcomes rather than government expenditures or investments. The Inclusiveness Index is uniquely focused on the degree of inclusion and marginality rather than a more general assessment of group-based well-being.
In addition to assessing how inclusive various societies are, the Inclusiveness Index serves as a diagnostic tool. It helps us identify places and societies that are improving, in terms of developing a more inclusive polity and set of institutions, and those places where societies are fracturing and becoming more divided along these lines. The data tells the main story, but we also seek to surface stories and trends that lie beneath the data.
In our conception, inclusiveness entails access to power and public and private resources, and it improves the way society views marginalized group members. Inclusivity is realized when historically or currently marginalized groups feel valued, when differences are respected, and when basic and fundamental needs and rights- relative to those societies' dominant groups-are met and recognized. Our index focuses on social groups rather than individuals, as marginality often occurs as a result of a group membership.
We operationalize this definition of "inclusivity" by focusing primarily on the performance of groups that span salient social cleavages, such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. We realize that such an approach cannot fully account for the unquantifiable or more qualitative aspects of belonging and inclusivity. For that reason, each version of the Inclusiveness Index report highlights stories and themes that go beyond the data.
Thus, each issue looks for patterns or stories that lay behind the data and touch on issues of inclusivity both across the globe and within the United States. Our 2016 report examined the global migrant crisis. Our 2017 report focused on the rise of ethnonationalism. Our 2018 report surveyed the reckoning brought about by the global #MeToo movement and the growing global water crises. For 2019 we took a closer look at the role of social media in spreading hate and falsehoods, and how global leaders are responding. And in this 2020 report, we focus on the responses nationally, and globally, to the COVID-19 crisis.
As always, a word of caution: our rankings are not the final word on inclusivity nor a definitive assessment of any national or state performance. Rather, they are intended to spark a conversation and generate further inquiry into how and why some places, communities, and nations are more inclusive than others.
Please be sure to send us your suggestions, feedback, and ideas. Additional information about this project, including past reports and downloadable data files, is available at belonging.berkeley.edu/inclusivenessindex.
The United States government’s fourth periodic report of 2011 (hereinafter the Report) celebrates the election of President Barack Obama as the first Black/African American President, as one of the steps forward to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. However, the Report has failed to examine the outcomes of racialized policies that have led to food insecurity among low-income households and people of color. These outcomes include inadequate distribution of healthy and nutritious food and food deserts in the U.S., which disproportionately impact the health and well being of many communities of color. Furthermore, the report failed to mention or reference any particular policies and remedies that the U.S. government must undertake to ensure the right and access to adequate food. Accordingly, the federal government and legislative authorities have an obligation to address these racial and ethnic disparities and improve overall conditions for these impacted communities.
The index does not purport to represent a definitive measure of any one country's inclusion or lack thereof, but it is intended to draw attention to the conditions of marginalized groups, globally, and generate discussion for further inquiry into the realities facing certain regions with the hope of influencing policy that would improve people’s lives.
The report, The US Farm Bill: Corporate Power and Structural Racialization in the US Food System, investigates the $956 billion US Farm Bill and aims to address both corporate power and marginalized outcomes within the US food system. Written by Elsadig Elsheikh, the director at the Haas Institute's Global Justice Program, and Hossein Ayazi, the program's graduate research assistant, this report fills a void in food and agriculture policy research by providing a comprehensive and multidimensional analysis of the US Farm Bill.
This report aims to support ongoing and future Farm Bill negotiation policy campaigns. Primarily aimed at advocates, practitioners, and researchers from across social justice movements, this report hopes to identify points of convergence for building a broad-based movement for food sovereignty.
The new report provides evidence-based analysis that inequity within the food system—such as limited access to nutritious and affordable food for consumers, adequate and safe conditions for food system workers, or support program benefits or high-quality land for existing and prospective farmers—can not be addressed without addressing inequities within society as a whole, especially around issues of race and access to power.
The report also lifts up a series of short-term policy interventions and long-term strategies to address the major structural barriers in the United States food system.
Co-authored by john a. powell, Elsadig Elsheikh, and Hossein Ayazi, the Haas Institute’s analysis underscores how the TPP would grant greater transnational corporate influence over the fate of one third of all world trade, with TPP signatory members producing 40 percent of all global economic output.
The TPP’s nuanced provisions will give corporations the power to evade environmental regulations, bypass national courts and override governments, and control workers’ movements throughout the TPP countries.
Since the release of TPP text, debate has emerged over whether the trade deal will, in fact, stimulate economic growth and create jobs or violate labor laws and tank the economies of developing nations. While these discussions address important concerns, they have also overshadowed the deeper implications of the TPP. If it passes, the TPP would threaten key democratic principles, such as transparency and public accountability.
The TPP will drastically erode national and international protections for labor, including driving down the wages of US workers by putting them into competition with poorly paid TPP countries’ workers. Restrictions on generic medicines will surge the prices of drugs throughout the world, with serious implications on global health and wellbeing. TPP also reduces environmental protections that minimize the harm caused by logging, trafficking, and pollution. These are just a few examples of impacts egregious and large enough in scale to warrant public scrutiny.
Though many multi-dimensional indices have been developed by other organizations, such as the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index (HDI), the Haas Institute Inclusiveness Index is unique as a research tool to measure inclusion1 of underserved and marginalized groups within our society—nationally and internationally. And while there are many excellent equity indices that examine and attempt to measure well-being in particular,2 the Inclusiveness Index is uniquely focused on the degree of inclusion and marginality rather than a more general assessment of group-based well-being.
Inclusivity entails greater access to power and public and private resources, and improves the way society views group members. Inclusivity is realized when historically or currently marginalized groups feel valued, when differences are respected, and when basic and fundamental needs and rights—relative to those society’s dominant groups—are met and recognized. Our Index focuses on social groups rather than individuals or even communities, as marginality often occurs as a result of group membership.
The goal of the Inclusiveness Index initiative is to identify policies, interventions, and other levers that have proven effective at ameliorating marginality and promoting inclusivity, belonging, and equity. The Index is a diagnostic instrument intended to help us pursue that goal by illustrating how different regions, states, and nations fare relative to each other in terms of inclusivity and marginality.
The Haas Institute is holistically focused on the processes of "Othering" and marginality that share common structures and features, as we are most concerned with the forces that engender inclusion or marginality across multiple social cleavages.
In this report, we rank nation-states according to a core set of indicators, as well as all 50 states within the United States. We then delve behind the data in our findings and themes sections, and surface deeper insights on notable trends and patterns, such as the global migration crisis and rise of extreme and toxic economic inequality.
Our rankings are not the final word on inclusivity nor a definitive assessment of any national or state performance, but intended to spark a conversation and generate further inquiry into how and why some places, communities, and nations are more inclusive than others.
The purpose of this publication is to enhance the utility of existing academic research on Islamophobia in the United States for a wide range of stakeholders interested in challenging this global phenomenon. These stakeholders may include activists, civil rights organizations, community workers, counselors, students, researchers, and policy-makers. In providing the community with a short-hand summary of publications about Islamophobia, we aim to categorize existing work, encourage a robust expansion of these debates, and establish a framework for the synthesis and summary of anti-Islamophobia research across the globe.
This report acknowledges that Islamophobia in the US is not new; however, over the past 16 years, the rapid development and convergence of con-temporary Islamophobia movements have brought forth federal measures and state legislation that frame Muslims as untrustworthy and incompatible with American values, further subjecting Muslims to surveillance, profiling, and exclusion along the lines of racial and ethnic discrimination, as determined by their national origin and religion. Additionally, contemporary Islamophobia movements—operating with the shared ambition to scrutinize and dehumanize Muslims—aim to other and undermine Muslim Americans’ citizenry and agency.
Islamophobia is a form of xenophobia and discrimination based on religious and national origin that aims to single out and exploit Muslims as political scapegoats for failed economic and political projects, and functions as a proxy for racial anxiety within the US.5 Between 2010 and 2016, 194 an-ti-Muslim bills were introduced in 39 states, with a total of 18 anti-Muslim bills enacted into law.
Yet, across international humanitarian law, human rights law, refugee law, and other bodies of law, protections for climate-induced displaced persons forced to cross international borders are limited, piecemeal, and not legally binding. International migration following short-term disasters is only occasionally protected under humanitarian visas and state-specific measures as with the United States’ Temporary Protected Status designation, though such protections are often provisional and not legally binding. Likewise, international migration following long-term disasters is not covered unless the provision of support by the local government (or governments) is denied on the basis of race, religion, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
This report argues that a comprehensive framework for climate-induced displaced persons forced to cross international borders to be considered “climate refugees” is necessary.
This report develops a framework of global forced migration that accounts for how experiences of displacement across the globe, and the set of institutional norms and values surrounding “refugeehood,” are inseparable from not only historical and contemporary formations of colonialism, imperialism, and militarization, but also momentary and ongoing environmental changes. It argues that neoliberalization, securitization, and the climate crisis describe these dynamics of global forced migration in the present moment.
The report uses as a starting point what is today commonly referred to as the “European refugee crisis." Despite popular notions that frame the US and Europe as the primary regions impacted by the refugee crisis, the authors illustrate how these areas, with the exception of Sweden and Germany, actually host the fewest refugees relative to their population and wealth—yet have the potential to provide greater support to vulnerable displaced persons and refugees from around the world.
Aimed at advocates, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, Moving Targets was written to provide a conceptual framework for understanding forced migration, support improvements in local, national, and international refugee policy, and identify research-based interventions to facilitate fairer refugee support mechanisms.
With ten case studies in four “mega-regions” of the world, Moving Targets not only identifies the major dynamics causing massive waves of migration today but also traces the colonial histories of these dynamics and why nations that may seem far removed from the current crises may still have a hand in their creation and exacerbation.
With this analysis for comprehending the dynamics of forced migration—where displaced persons and refugees come from, where they go, and why they are turned away—the report advocates for a series of policy interventions that would move the world closer to a more comprehensive and equitable refugee support regime. Seeking to envision a set of policy interventions that can not only help establish a more comprehensive and equitable global refugee regime, but also help prevent the future production of refugees, Moving Targets serves as an all-encompassing guide to understanding historical and contemporary dynamics of global forced migration and the obligations of actors at various levels.
The power of corporations lies in their ability to influence and direct policy, research, consumption, and social behavior to boost their bottom line of maximizing profits at all costs. Oftentimes, these corporations use their leverage over the political system to control commodity and agricultural markets and food prices, which gives them immense power within and beyond the food system. Corporate power has contributed to aggressive environmental degradation, erasure of local ecologies and knowledge, dispossession of land among small farmers and rural agricultural workers, and countless food-related health challenges that resulted from diets high in sugar and fat from processed food and beverages.
Specifically, first, corporations secure their power by influencing and controlling: the production, processing, distribution, and service of food commodities; and with commodity support programs, crop insurance, labor regimes, and international food aid being the most grievous sites of corporate power. Second, corporations exert and secure their power by influencing higher education (vis-à-vis private funding of research and development), lobbying efforts on food policies, corporate mergers, and the "revolving door" between corporate employees and government officials. The Shahidi project aims to investigate these major spheres within which corporate power remains particularly salient and impedes social progress.