(Originally sent to ISSHO, Fukuzawa, and Friends Tue, 4 Nov 1997
Summary sent to JALTCALL Thur, 6 Nov 1997)
THE PALE N-SIG ROUNDTABLE REPORT
MENTIONING THE GWENDOLYN GALLAGHER CASE
Response to posts from Asahikawa University Kyoushokuin Kumiai, and Professor Yamauchi, Asahikawa University
BACKGROUND: I wrote up a report on a JALT Roundtable on employment issues, which I sent to Fukuzawa, ISSHO, and Friends about a month ago. It has sparked some controversy. Two concerned parties at Asahikawa University, a union and a professor, have posted email protest to the JALTCALL forum. For those who came in late, my original report may be found here.
At issue is my depiction of a contentious issue on the internet. My report contained information on the dismissal of Gwen Gallagher, a non-Japanese educator from private university Asahikawa Daigaku, on decidedly (as judged by a court of law) unfair grounds. The aggrieved parties claim that my report was not "truthful", and had "absolutely no foundation in reality". We will see about that. First their posts:
ASAHIKAWA CASE - UNION RESPONSE
This message is a response to David Aldwinckle's posting for the PALE NSIG on 16 October. It represents the views of the main union at Asahikawa University (Asahikawa-daigaku-kyoshokuin-kumiai). The following views were expressed at union meeting called 22 October to discuss the article.
Over the last decade, our union has dedicated itself to creating an egalitarian environment within our university. We have vigorously promoted policies that have benefited everyone at this establishment. Our goal is to create a community within our university that encompasses all regardless of gender, age or ethnic origin. We believe that the policies we have pursued have been successful. We are proud of our achievements to date. Therefore, we were very distressed to read Mr. Aldwinckle's article which paints a very false picture of this university.
We held a union meeting on Wednesday 22 October 1997. At meeting a translation of the section Mr. Aldwinckle wrote on the Gwendolyn Gallagher case was read out. Our members were angered that Mr. Aldwinckle had written such a completely inaccurate account of events at our university. What we found most offensive was the allegation that Ms. Gallagher's contract was not renewed because she was "too Japanese" and that the university wanted a "new gaijin." Had this been the case, our union would have immediately set up barricades in front of the school and brought the university to a complete halt. However, the first time we heard these untrue accusations was in Mr. Aldwinckle's article. They were never given as reasons for the non-renewal of Ms. Gallagher's contract. They have also never appeared in any of the newspaper coverage on the case. (If you wish to read an accurate account of events, see the Asahishimbun or the Hokkaidoshimbun for 26 March 1997. These article were written just after Ms. Gallagher accepted the court-mediated compromise settlement. They contain a balanced view of the case with the opinions from both parties involved).
Many comments were made by our members at the meeting, here are a selected few. A female union member expressed her shock at how such a scandalous and completely inaccurate piece could be circulated by an academic society. Another member said he thought that academics were meant to research their subject thoroughly before publishing. Another member wonder why Mr. Aldwinckle hadn't contact our union before penning his article. Yet another expressed the view that he should, at the very least, have made an attempt to read up on the case before writing such a damming article about our university.
Our members unanimously expressed the hope that your society will in future research the facts before unfairly making extremely serious accusations. Is it too much to ask that an article be truthful?
On behalf of all the members of the Asahikawa University Staff Union (Asahikawa-daigaku-kyoshokuin-kumiai)
Shigeyuki Katahira, Union Leader
END OF POST
Asahikawa Case - A personal view
At a recent union meeting, I was handed a copy of David Aldwinckle's article on Asahikawa University. I was very surprised by its inaccurate content. Although, I believe David is a well intentioned person, I must take issue with almost every point he makes about the Gwendolyn Gallagher case. Here is my own personal opinion on the article, which in no way represents the official view of Asahikawa University.
One of the parts I most disagree with is: "The reasons Asahikawa Dai gave to the court was that Gwen was 'too Japanese', and they had wanted to "refresh" the school with some 'fresh gaijin.'" These reasons were never given by the university as causes for the non-renewal of the contract. Furthermore, these ridiculous allegations have absolutely no foundation in reality. The first time I read about them was in David's article.
David wrote: "...[she] came to school about three years ago to find that her courses had been deleted from the curriculum and her name from the roster. There had neither been advance warning of her dismissal, nor a reason given at any time." This is completely untrue. Every year from March 1991, Ms. Gallagher was officially informed that her contract would expire on 31 March 1996. Furthermore, she signed documents acknowledging this each year. In May 1995, she was again officially informed that her contract would end on 31 March 1996. Again she sign an official document acknowledging this. Four years official advance notice does not strike me as being without "advanced warning." Furthermore, after discussing the contract with her in 1995, the university offered Ms. Gallagher another year-long contract. We thought she had accepted the new contract and were very surprised when she rejected it. This was just before the beginning of the new academic year in April 1996. Because of this, her name appeared in all the 2300 copies of the officially printed timetables. Therefore, far from her name being deleted from the curriculum, it was very much present even though she wasn't.
In the article it was stated: "She won last year, and the school settled, reinstating her in March with back pay but with waived reimbursement of legal fees." This is a very distorted representation of the facts. The university and Ms. Gallagher accepted a mediated settlement at the preliminary stage of the case. This basically amounted to what the university had offered Ms. Gallagher before she went to court. It was a simple settlement between the two parties. I fail to see how this can be counted as a "victory," especially since no legal decision was made or precedent set. The Asahishimbun on 26 March 1997 gives an accurate account of the case and the settlement. It also clearly states that Ms. Gallagher agreed to return to the university for one year.
There were many other parts of the article where I found myself seriously disagreeing with the author. However, I have covered some of the main points here. I would like to suggest that before any more is written about this case, the facts should be properly researched. Any impartial reading of the court documents or the newspaper coverage will clearly show that David's article is highly inaccurate. Your academic society might also want to consider the professional wisdom of presenting hearsay as fact.
Ryoji Yamauchi
Professor, Asahikawa University
END OF POST
Now, I will respond to each post in turn:
THE ASAHIKAWA DAIGAKU KYOUSHOKUIN KUMIAI'S POST
MY RESPONSE
There are several problems with the Kumiai's (teachers' union) position on my report, not the least of them allegations of my not being "truthful". They are trying to make a case for scandal where one isn't obvious. For three reasons:
1) MY POST WAS A PROCEEDINGS. It was not meant as a "damming [sic] article about [Asahikawa] University." It was meant as a write-up of the meeting and of the issues covered. The representation of the Asahikawa case were meant as paraphrasings of Ms Gallagher's words and opinions, not mine. The report was mine, yes, and I regret any inaccuracies due to paraphrasing. However, the Kumiai's demands for clearance of our report with them first is unreasonable. It would be like demanding Ms Gallagher clear her opinions with them before she speaks. All I wanted to say was that "these were the issues raised at the N-SIG Roundtable", finishing with my thoughts on Ninkisei at the end. I am surprised that it was seen as an indictment of the union and its "achievements to date". In fact:
2) MY POST SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE KUMIAI ANYWAY, SO WHAT'S THEIR BEEF? This point in particular smacks of hypocrisy. Did the Kumiai really have time in the meeting to translate all of the 5000 words and 15 pages I wrote on the Roundtable? If not, then who is misrepresenting whom? I suspect the union did not have the time, since a full translation of my report would have revealed that I said nothing at all about them. Therefore, if we're going to talk about telling "the truth" or accuse people of misrepresentation, I could make the same claim. Given that their answer was clearly proofread by a native speaker, I think the Kumiai could do with a new interpreter, perhaps one with less of a personal agenda.
The truth, according to Ms Gallagher at our roundtable, is that at the first hearing the judge asked the school for a reason for her dismissal, and the school couldn't give one. Later, the school submitted a document to the court making the case for needing "furesshu na gaikokujin" (sic), meaning gaijin that were not too "Japanized" (nipponnaizu). This is a matter of public record, and if you want to see proof, please read on. In the face of this information, the union should not only reflect upon its own ironic lack of research, but also reconsider its grand claim that "[h]ad this been the case, our union would have immediately set up barricades in front of the school and brought the university to a complete halt."
3) THIS RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF THE UNION ITSELF. Why is it being so defensive about Ms Gallagher stating her case at a JALT meeting, and about one of the PALE N-SIG officers, who is within his rights, typing up and circulating a report about it? Why is a discussion of the case taken as a criticism of the union? Moreover, why isn't it being a busybody on behalf of Ms Gallagher, instead of against her? Ironies abound.
Anyway, the Kumiai's letter was a "we protest" type of post, made by members who seem to put more value on brief recaps in newspapers as full recounts of the case than on first-person accounts from Ms Gallagher. So let us now turn to the more important post, from Professor Yamauchi of Asahikawa University, who is in fact at the epicenter of the Gwendolyn Gallagher Case. I will quote him in full and deal with each one of his points in turn.
>Asahikawa Case - A personal view
At a recent union meeting, I was handed a copy of David Aldwinckle's article on Asahikawa University. I was very surprised by its inaccurate content. Although, I believe David is a well intentioned person, I must take issue with almost every point he makes about the Gwendolyn Gallagher case. Here is my own personal opinion on the article, which in no way represents the official view of Asahikawa University.
One of the parts I most disagree with is: "The reasons Asahikawa Dai gave to the court was that Gwen was 'too Japanese', and they had wanted to "refresh" the school with some 'fresh gaijin.'" These reasons were never given by the university as causes for the non-renewal of the contract. Furthermore, these ridiculous allegations have absolutely no foundation in reality. The first time I read about them was in David's article.
This is surprising for Professor Yamauchi to claim. This means that you did not read about them in your school's own affidavit, concerning reasons for firing Ms Gallagher, which is available to the public. Readers of this can see them for themselves: the cover page and two pertinent pages of the 22-page document are here at http://www.debito.org/asahikawaaffidavit1.jpg , /asahikawaaffidavit2.jpg and /asahikawaaffidavit3.jpg
For those without Web access, I will give translations: Asahikawa Daigaku's Affidavit (heisei 8 nen (yo) dai 14 gou chii hozen tou karishobun moushi tate jiken, junbi shomen (3)) was submitted to the Asahikawa District Court on August 23, 1996. In a paragraph that runs from page 7 to 8, it is explicitly written (my translation; I would appreciate corrections):
"That is to say, with the practical use of labor costs, there are limits to the number of faculty we can hire; furthermore, there are some demerits pertaining to foreign teachers of foreign language, like difficulties with communication with students etc. This is why we rather boldly say there must be merit for hiring those who can provide enough of those skills, and those merits certainly lie in having 'fresh foreigners', that is to say, not too 'Japanized'"
I henceforth romanize the Japanese of the first half of the paragraph, with no omissions, to avoid misquoting. It goes: [sunawachi, jinkenhi no unyou jou, saiyou suru kyoinsuu ni wa gendo ari, shikamo gaikokujin gogaku kyouin wa gakusei tou to komyunikeishon ni oite nanten ga aru nado demeritto ga aru no de aru kara, aete saiyou suru ni wa sore o oginau ni tariru meritto ga nakereba naranai ga, sono meritto wa masani furesshu na gaijin de aru koto, sunawachi nipponnaizu sareteinai koto ni aru.]
The paragraph concludes by specifically alighting on Ms Gallagher's case:
"Above all, the teaching of foreign languages these days not only values language heavily, but also the offering and transmission of culture, and 'fresh' [shinsen] information from foreign countries. This is especially important [nao sara de aru]. However, for someone to work in Japan like a beneficiary [saikensha no you ni] for a continuous 12 years, and to live in Japan for 15 years, she has come so far as to be Japanized, and clearly we cannot fulfill a request like this."
[Toriwake, saikin no gaikokugo kyouiku wa, gaikokugo dake de naku ibunka, gaikoku no shinsen na jouhou no teikyou, dentatsu to iu ten mo juushi sareteiru no de nao sara de aru. Tokoroga, saikensha no you ni 12 nenkan mo nihon de koyou o keizoku shi, 15 nenkan mo nihon ni zaijuu shiteiru to, sore dake nipponnaizu sare, kono you na yousei o yori hatashi enaku naru koto wa akiraka de aru.]
Sir, this is not hearsay. This is a public document. If you have not read this document (and according to Ms Gallagher, when "submitting [your] own affidavit, testifying and representing the school's interest at the court-sponsored settlement", you yourself used the word "furesshu" "repeatedly" in a similar context), then you may want to reconsider your point about my facts not being "properly researched". If you have in fact read this document, then you, sir, are misrepresenting yourself.
> David wrote: "...[she] came to school about three years ago to find that her courses had been deleted from the curriculum and her name from the roster. There had neither been advance warning of her dismissal, nor a reason given at any time." This is completely untrue. Every year from March 1991, Ms. Gallagher was officially informed that her contract would expire on 31 March 1996. Furthermore, she signed documents acknowledging this each year. In May 1995, she was again officially informed that her contract would end on 31 March 1996. Again she sign an official document acknowledging this. Four years official advance notice does not strike me as being without "advanced warning."
Ms Gallagher acknowledges the 5-year term limitation in a personal FAX to me. But there is a bit of fine print here. "Expiration of contract" does not by law automatically mean "job dismissal", and her several years of renewals apparently gave no forboding that she would not have another renewal. In fact, by the new Monbushou guidelines for all contract employment in Japanese universities, employees must be clearly informed of their term limits, and if expiration does in fact mean dismissal. Thus the onus for giving information lies upon the school. Ms Gallagher was apparently not clearly informed, which, by Monbushou directive, she should have been.
>Furthermore, after discussing the contract with her in 1995, the university offered Ms. Gallagher another year-long contract. We thought she had accepted the new contract and were very surprised when she rejected it.
Ms Gallagher claims something different. I'll quote her:
"Professor Yamauchi also claims that I was offered a one-year contract for 1996, but refused. This is false, and I'm afraid he cannot be excused on the grounds of ignorance as he acted as a negotiator between the university and myself on this issue, and he knows the truth. At first the university insisted that I be dismissed in March '96. They offered no reasons (those interesting contentions about my being "too Japanese" and the need for "fresh gaijin" came much later, after I was already fired and the lawsuit was well underway.) Then, after considerable mediation by Professor Yamauchi, the administration said grudgingly that I might hang on another year IF I AGREED TO ACCEPT BEING DISMISSED AT THE END OF IT [her emphasis]. I made it clear all the way through the negotiations that, as a matter of principle, I would never agree to being fired without cause at any date. Finally, Professor Yamauchi informed me that the school had consented to drop that condition, and I said that I was willing to accept a one-year contract for 1996. My name was reinserted into the tentative schedule of classes. But when an administrative official came to officially, formally ask me to accept a contract for 1996, he insisted that this was to be understood as a final, non-renewable contract (this meeting was tape-recorded). Naturally, I reiterated that I had not and would not agree to any such condition, and that this was a matter which, according to Professor Yamauchi, had already been settled. After this meeting, I did not know for sure that I would be fired until Professor Yamauchi informed me on March 22....
"But even without all this explanation, Professor Yamauchi's contention that I refused to renew my contract in 1996 beggars belief. What, then, was the lawsuit all about? I was suing for reinstatement. If I had been demanding double salary and an office with a swimming pool, they could have complained of such in the court records."
>This was just before the beginning of the new academic year in April 1996. Because of this, her name appeared in all the 2300 copies of the officially printed timetables. Therefore, far from her name being deleted from the curriculum, it was very much present even though she wasn't.
I presume you're referring to the tentative schedule of classes of 1996, into which Ms Gallagher's name was apparently reinserted after the above-mentioned agreement was reached, not the previous one in which she says she was deleted. Anyway, alright--it's your word against hers here. I don't have a copy of the curriculum or timetable so I cannot argue if she was included or not. Continuing:
> In the article it was stated: "She won last year, and the school settled, reinstating her in March with back pay but with waived reimbursement of legal fees." This is a very distorted representation of the facts. The university and Ms. Gallagher accepted a mediated settlement at the preliminary stage of the case. This basically amounted to what the university had offered Ms. Gallagher before she went to court. It was a simple settlement between the two parties. I fail to see how this can be counted as a "victory," especially since no legal decision was made or precedent set.
The district court in December 1996 issued a "preliminary ruling" in Ms Gallagher's favor. Is this not a legal decision? It is hard to conceive of much else that would give both sides an incentive to reach a structured settlement.
>The Asahishimbun on 26 March 1997 gives an accurate account of the case and the settlement. It also clearly states that Ms. Gallagher agreed to return to the university for one year.
"But for ONLY one year?" is the bone of contention in this settlement.
The thing that strikes me most about this case is this: nowhere apparent in this dispute is there a *professional* reason for firing Ms Gallagher. "Refreshing" a department by firing all the old deadwood kyouju is never an option I see taken for Japanese professionals. That's probably why tenure exists. But a reason such as "she was a bad teacher" or "she was an embezzler of school monies" never enters the radar screen.
The fact is, as I see it, the powers that be have reached their conclusions first, i.e. "Gwen must go", and are working backwards to find reasons to justify that. The Asahikawa District Court justice apparently wasn't impressed with the reasoning used by the school, which is why he gave a preliminary ruling in Ms Gallagher's favor (see statement at bottom), and why a settlement was reached for reinstatement. Then the school seems to have gone back to the tactic of finding loopholes in the settlement, i.e. equivocating contract expiration with job dismissal, which Ms Gallagher obviously did not seek and apparently did not agree to in the settlement. To me, this shows a remarkable amount of bad faith in the negotiation.
> There were many other parts of the article where I found myself seriously disagreeing with the author. However, I have covered some of the main points here. I would like to suggest that before any more is written about this case, the facts should be properly researched. Any impartial reading of the court documents or the newspaper coverage will clearly show that David's article is highly inaccurate. Your academic society might also want to consider the professional wisdom of presenting hearsay as fact.
>Ryoji Yamauchi
>Professor, Asahikawa University
Very well, Professor Yamauchi, your points are taken, and I thank you for them. And with a reading of the court documents above (as well as the newspapers--I have seen copies of the articles you refer to), I hope that where the inaccuracies are is clearer now.
And to avoid further hearsay, reprinted at the bottom of this posting is Gwen's one-page handout assessment of her case, given at JALT, which I should have used in the first place in my Roundtable report. Again, I apologize for any inaccuracies due to paraphrasing or memory.
CONCLUSIONS
As both the Kumiai's and Professor Yamauchi's posts were public letters, unsolicited and sent to a public forum, JALTCALL, we will be publishing them in full in the PALE newsletter. The issue will be coming out in December, deadline late November. Thus both parties are welcome to a right of reply to this post, also publishable in PALE.
But the burning questions I think we must deal with are these:
I can understand why a professor, even if he is an important member of one Asahikawa Dai's unions, would want to close ranks and protect the reputation of his workplace--for he has a job and wants to keep it. But the Kumiai's stance towards Ms Gallagher is a mystery.
1) Why would a union, which is supposed to represent teachers and staff, not only allow Ms Gallagher, a fellow teacher, to be fired once on the pretext of wanting "furesshu" gaijin, but also essentially allow her to be fired twice?
2) Why is the union appearing to be not doing their job, and instead, ironically, blaming Ms Gallagher for setting the precedent to enable the school to fire all contracted workers? This seems to be chiselling away at the position of contracted workers more than forifying it, and to their own loss.
Essentially, what exactly do these people have against Gwen? It is not at all clear that there is a professional reason. This is precisely one of the abuses of Ninkisei I keep on talking about--arbitrary dismissals.
Now, if Professor Yamauchi and/or the Kumiai would like to claim misrepresentation of their position in the above questions, please do so. Make your case. Please do it as you started, via a public forum, JALTCALL. Incidentially, I have also sent copies of your posts and my answer to other public debate fora, such as the Dead Fukuzawa Society and ISSHO Kikaku.
But the bottom line is that Ms Gallagher's case is important--it sets a bad precedent for all non-Japanese (and for that matter, all contracted Japanese) professionals in Private Universities, where not only do unions appear ineffectual, but also the letter of the law, as stated in the Roudou Kijun Hou and by court settlements, is not enforced.
Dave Aldwinckle
AVOIDING HEARSAY:
MS GALLAGHER'S OWN STATEMENT ON HER CASE
(Distributed as a handout at the JALT conference in Hamamatsu)
"FIRED WITHOUT CAUSE: TWICE!?
ASAHIKAWA UNIVERSITY UNFAIR DISMISSAL: THE FACTS
In March 1996, Gwendolyn Gallagher was dismissed from her job as full-time lecturer in English at Asahikawa University, a position she had held for twelve years without incident or complaint. She was taken completely by surprise, and was utterly in the dark as to the reasons for her dismissal. Indeed, the university not only refused to give any reasons but took the stance that *reasons were entirely unnecessary* [her emphasis]. The would only say that her most recent contract had been a non-renewable one, an astounding claim, considering that such non-renewability was not written into the contract, had never been mentioned verbally, and no administrative records could be produced to support it.
Gallagher sued for reinstatement on the grounds of unfair dismissal. The court confirmed that the employer's failure to renew a contract, particularly for a long-term employee, was a defacto dismissal, requiring a "good, logical reason" to be effective. When pressed by the court for a reason, the university, although confirming that Ms Gallagher was a satisfactory educator, asserted that she was *"too Japanese"* and that it was necessary to "freshen-up" the school with *"fresh" gaijin* on a regular basis.
The district court in December 1996 issued a preliminary ruling which: 1) recognized Gallagher's dismissal as without cause and unjust 2) recognized her status as an Asahikawa University faculty member 3) required the university to pay her full salary retroactive to dismissal
In March 1997 the university and Ms Gallagher came to a court-sponsored settlement. As a condition to the settlement Ms Gallagher clearly stipulated that she would under no circumstances sign or verbally agree to any contract which was non-renewable or would be automatically terminated at any date. Bolstered by the cout's clear decision that she could not be fired again without "a good, logical reason", she accepted a one-year contract for the new school year. In a spirit of reconciliation she waived demands for monetary damages or reimbursement for legal fees.
However, within 24 hours of the settlement, the school proved that they had been acting in bad faith. Two seminars, which were normally taught by Ms Gallagher and for which no teacher had yet been assigned, were canceled ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS NO TEACHER AVAILABLE TO TEACH THEM.
Then in July the administration notified Ms Gallagher of their unilateral decision to *fire her again* at the end of the current school year. This time they cited "curricular change" although classes normally taught by Ms Gallagher were not scheduled to be eliminated from the curriculum. Legal counsel for Ms Gallagher has informed Asahikawa University of her intention to sue if they proceed on this course.
(further information, as well as prewritten, addresssed, and stamped postcards protesting Ms Gallagher's dismissal are available at:
COMMITTEE FOR REINSTATEMENT OF GALLAGHER
Takasagodai 6 chome, Asahikawa, Japan 070
Ph/FAX: (0166) 63-1493
Representative: Dr Harumi Kikuchi
Secretary: Professor Masahiro Asada)
END OF POST
