This article is a response to "The Shaky Legal Foundations of the Global Human Rights Education Project," an article written by Barend Vlaardingerbroek, in which Vlaardingerbroek characterizes current practices of human rights education (HRE) as having an overriding agenda of activism, one that can draw on an ideologically-driven misinterpretation of international human rights standards. Vlaardingerbroek's argument is based primarily on an example of an HRE program being carried out by the United Kingdom section of Amnesty International, which apparently presents same-sex marriage as directly supported in international human rights law (which it is not). Felisa Tibbitts responds that HRE is a quite diverse field of practice, differing not only according to audiences and educational settings but also national contexts. While Tibbitts agrees that students ought to learn about the international legal framework of human rights as well as national protection systems that link up the international standards with the local context of the learner, she sees two challenges to this proposal: (1) This seems to make HRE even less realistic for schools, as so few teachers are themselves familiar with the basics of the human rights system, let alone the legal framework; and (2) The reduction of HRE to teaching legal standards would undercut its potential to fulfill its ultimate goal, which is to reduce human rights violations. [For "The Shaky Legal Foundations of the Global Human Rights Education Project," see EJ1149295.]