This page is no longer being updated. Please go to http://www.debito.org/PALE/
全国語学教育学会
The Japan Association for Language Teaching
PALE 特別分科会
Journal of Professional Issues
Professionalism, Administration and
Leadership in Education
Special Interest Group (SIG)
OLDER DEVELOPMENTS TO BE APPRAISED ON:
UPDATES ON CASES REPORTED IN PREVIOUS PALE JOURNALS
THE FUTURE:
THE PRESENT:
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: PALE now has a discussion mailing list so that
people can be updated and contribute in real time. To subscribe, visit www.topica.com/lists/PALE,
or email PALE-subscribe@topica.com.
To post messages to the list, email PALE@topica.com,
and to read message archives, see www.topica.com/lists/PALE/
Dave Aldwinckle, PALE Journal Editor
NEW DEVELOPMENTS TO BE ADVISED ON:
THE DOKURITSU GYOUSEI HOUJINKA REFORMS:
RAMIFICATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
By Bern Mulvey, Associate Professor, Fukui University
Introduction
This past summer, the Japanese government made public the specific details (and proposed
timetable) of its plans to reform the National University (Kokuritsu Daigaku) system.
Referred to in Japanese as "Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka" (独立行政法人化--literally
"Autonomous Administrative Managementizing") and/or "Dokuritsu Gyousei
Houjin Tsuuzoku Hou," these reforms would result in sweeping changes to the
way National Universities are organized and administered. Indeed, if fully implemented,
these proposals would effectively end the privileged status of these institutions,
placing them under the care of overseers with broad powers -- including the ability
to cut funding to wayward schools and/or remove ineffective teachers.
As is perhaps to have been expected, the government's proposals have sparked strong
negative reactions from faculty and administrators throughout Japan. Over one hundred
anti-reform webpages have sprung up on the internet, while protests of the more traditional
variety have occurred (according to documents distributed at the Zengaku Setsumeikai
held at Phoenix Plaza in Fukui on October 22) at every National University
in this country. Furthermore, while the manner and virulency of this opposition
varies by institution, it is becoming increasingly apparent that these protests are
neither isolated incidents nor aberrations; on the contrary, and in fascinating contrast
to the commonly-held conception that Japanese seek to avoid confrontation at all
cost, it is clear that many National University faculty members and administrators
have joined together into an increasingly organized protest movement, the goals,
strategies, and actions of which are becoming more and more confrontational.
The issues involved in this debate will have a direct impact on all teachers, foreign
and Japanese, working at National Universities in Japan. This paper provides a summary
in English of the proposed reforms and examines the reasons behind the opposition
of many Japanese National University employees to their implementation. It also analyzes
the methods of protest being employed in an attempt to gain a better understanding
of the endlessly-promulgated but never defined (see Dillon, 1997; Johnson and Sower,
1996, etc.) "Japanese method of doing things" -- the alleged ignorance
of which having long been a lightning rod for criticism of PALE SIG activism.
What Exactly Are The "Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka" Reforms?1
Beginning as early as the spring of 2001,2 each National
University will become "independent" (hence the use of the term "dokuritsu").
In other words, they will no longer be directly under the thumb of Monbusho, gaining
greater say in, for instance, setting curriculum and deciding areas of specialization.3 However, this new-found independence will come at a stiff
price: each university will still be administered by someone with ties to the Japanese
government, in this case a manager (referred to as "houjin no chou") to
be chosen by an as yet unnamed cabinet minister. Furthermore, a national advisory
committee (with the somewhat Orwellian-sounding name of "Hyouka I-In Kai"
or "standards committee") will also be established at this time, with the
responsibility of evaluating both the performance of these various managers and the
institutions under their control.
These university managers will in a sense replace the gakuchou (school president)
at each university. They will have both greater powers and more duties than the current
gakuchou, including the responsibility for, among other things ensuring a more "results
orientated efficiency" (kouritsuteki katsu koukateki ni)4
in the running of the institutions under their control. Indeed, the government's
desired emphasis on efficiency (and hence a better return on its financial investment)
is readily apparent through even a cursory examination of the Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjin
Tsuusoku Houan -- the Japanese term "kouritsu" (efficiency) is repeated
therein no less than 20 times in the 7-page document.
However, by far the most important responsibility of these university managers will
be their ensuring that the institutions under their control satisfy mid-term goals
(chuuki mokuhyou) set for them by the cabinet minister after consultation with the
standards committee. Specifically, universities will be asked to produce 3- or 5-year
plans for achieving improvements in the following areas (condensed to three categories
below for sake of brevity):
1) education and research5
2) community service
3) spending
(by far the longest section, with many sub-categories denoting specific areas
to be improved)
and then achieve tangible results in a cost-effective manner. Performance with respect
to the above objectives will be evaluated at the end of each 3-5 year period by both
the standards committee and the cabinet minister, who will take appropriate action
(shoyou no sochi wo kouzuru) where necessary, including possibly issuing direct orders
for change (henka meirei).6
This idea of greater accountability -- i.e., requiring universities to satisfy mid-term
(i.e., 3-5 year) achievement objectives in order to avoid possible penalties -- is
a central element of the proposed reforms. As delineated quite clearly in the introductory
sections of the proposals, Monbusho is hoping that the implementation of these periodic
checks will help stimulate universities towards a renewed commitment to world-class
research (seikaiteki suijun no kyouiku kenkyuu wo tenkai suru), as well as prod them
to be more cost-effective and results-orientated (kouritsu teki katsu kekka teki
ni okonawaseru koto) in their efforts.7 While the exact
form any punitive actions might take for noncompliance is still under discussion,
some of the possibilities suggested so far -- including the power to fine (and even
terminate) employees and/or cut funding to schools8 --
would mean a sharp broadening of the government's powers vis-a-vis the various National
Universities. Indeed, despite Monbusho's assurances that any actions taken would
seek to respect the newly granted "independence" of each institution (kaku
daigaku no jishuusei/jiritsusei ni toku ni hairyo suru), the Jokoukai Nyu-su and
the Dai Ichi Jouichi I-In Kai predict that both funding and faculty cuts are likely
(okonawareru koto ha yousou sare you) under these new provisions, along with other
dire consequences for those universities judged in need of change.9
Finally, the determination of individual teacher salaries, heretofore solely a factor
of age, will under these new laws also take into account the skills, duties, and
accomplishments of each employee as well. Individuals judged as not producing adequately
-- even if they can avoid job termination -- will still face the possibility of lower
salaries and/or decreased opportunities for promotion as compared to their more productive
colleagues.10
In many ways, the proposed changes delineated above mirror similar reforms already
enacted in Britain and in Australia. The motives -- i.e., the Japanese government's
desire to control university spending and gain a greater say in personnel decisions
-- behind these new proposals are similar as well. In exchange for greater freedom
with regards to research and curriculum development, Japan's National Universities
will instead be placed under various new constraints. As careful budget maintenance
becomes more and more prioritized under these new laws, faculty and administrators
will be forced to become more "bottom-line" conscious, juggling research
and educational priorities with the need to reduce overall costs. When one factors
in the government's additional education, research, and community service objectives,
the challenges posed by these new reforms should be clear.
Why Japanese Teachers and Administrators are Against These Reforms11
In order to understand the reasons for Japanese teacher and administrator opposition
to these proposals, it is necessary to understand the recent historical context in
which these latest guidelines were laid down. Back in 1997, Monbusho announced that,
because of the low national birthrate (and resultant decrease in the number of applicants
for university entrance), it would seek a 10% reduction in the number of full-time
faculty over a ten year period beginning in 2001. This directive initially met with
resistance, but once it was realized that these reductions could be carried out without
mass-firings (i.e., through natural attrition as Japan's aging faculty finally begin
to retire over these next ten years), these new policies were reluctantly accepted.
However, in the summer of 1999, Prime Minister Obuchi announced that he would prefer
to see an additional 20% reduction (i.e., on top of the initial 10%) to the faculty
workforce over this same ten-year period. Moreover, his cabinet recently came out
with an even more drastic call for a 35% (total) reduction -- i.e., far more than
could possibly be satisfied by natural attrition. In other words, suddenly Japan's
National University professors and administrators are being confronted with something
most of them thought they would never face in their lifetimes: the possibility of
layoffs and even mass-terminations. As the Jokoukai Nyu-su (Mori, 1999, p. 2) asks,
what will happen to their rights (to guaranteed raises, lifetime employment, etc.)
as national employees?
Given this background, it is easy to understand the opposition to these latest proposals.
Below is a summary of the most important objections:
1) As written, the proposals will drastically reduce the independence of National
Universities, as well as deaden creativity and effectively end regional specialization.
Indeed, note Japanese educators, despite the use of "independence" in the
title to the reforms, and despite the government's stated commitment to nurturing
and promoting greater school and research independence and autonomy (daigaku no kyouiku
no jishuusei to jiritsusei wo tanpou suru), the final result will be an education
system where all must bow to the authority of government overseers -- not to mention
a standards committee and, ultimately, a cabinet minister. Furthermore, because all
National Universities will have to satisfy mid-term goals set by the cabinet minister
and/or the standards committee, these institutions will, in effect, have to give
up their independence and individuality in order to survive.
2) What exactly is to be the composition of the so-called standards committee?
In other words, who will be entrusted with the all-important power to judge the institutions?
Also, with regards to these judgements, will the universities in question be
allowed feedback into the process? Indeed, considering the somewhat vague nature
of the goals proposed (How does one evaluate success in meeting the needs of a community?),
what is to prevent the committee from using this ambiguity against the universities
(e.g., as an excuse to hasten faculty reductions)?
3) Regarding the mid-term objectives -- why are so many of them non-education
and/or non-research-related? Also, how realistic is it to expect institutions
of higher learning to satisfy short- and mid-term "efficiency" goals anyway?
Aren't such goals antithetical to education and research, the fruits of which are
often not recognizable outside the long-term, if at all?
4) Regarding the selection of the university managers (houjin no chou) -- why
is experience in education not listed as an essential prerequisite for hiring?
As now written, only "superior knowledge and experience in management"
(Jimuu to jigyou ni kansuru koudona chishiki to keiken wo yuusuru mono), as well
as the ability to run an institution properly and efficiently (jimuu to jigyou wo
tekisei to kouritsu teki ni unei dekiru mono), are considered necessary. How can
a person lacking experience in education possibly understand the needs of educators
and/or run a university successfully?
Indeed, if there is a common thread to the above objections, it is the shared distrust
in the government's intentions. If these new proposals become law, ask many Japanese
faculty and administrators, what will happen to their traditional privileges as Japanese
national-level public servants (under the Roudou Jouken Kanren Kitei and the Koukka
Koumuin Hou)? Are not these "reforms" just an excuse for the government
to close poorly attended schools and/or fire unneeded instructors?
How The Universities are Resisting These Reforms
In response to the government's proposals, National Universities in Japan have formed
various study groups (such as the ponderously named "Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka
Mondai ni Kansuru Kentou Sho I-In Kai") researching ways to best resist the
proposed reforms. Meetings between different regional groups (such as the one in
Fukui in October) have also been held, at first secretly (out of fear of retribution
-- see Dai Ichi Jouchi I-In Kai, 1999a, pp. 1-3), and more recently openly to discuss
opposition to these reforms. Actions taken so far include disrupting important events
with posters and flyers, holding public rallies (complete with speeches) on campus,
conducting fund-raising on campus for an aggressive ad campaign (to be launched in
the spring of 2000), and delivering flyers and giving anti-reform lectures to students
at the beginning of classes.
The protests can be extremely confrontational. At Fukui University, on "Open
Campus Day" (a day when parents and young children are invited onto campus to
attend various exhibits and activities designed to show the university in the best
light possible), hundreds of gaudily colored posters were plastered to walls, trees,
windows demanding the rescinding of the dokuritsuhou reforms. In November, preparations
for the 50th anniversary of the founding of Fukui University were disrupted by the
placing of huge banners in protest of the reforms, announcing the faculty's resolve
to resist their implementation (these banners remained up throughout the 5-day celebration).
Requests for money and/or notices announcing additional meetings regarding this issue
appear in boxes of the Japanese faculty twice a month. Finding anti-reform flyers
strewn about (obviously distributed to students by the preceding instructor) as one
enters one's classroom is not unusual, nor is it unusual to hear a loud speech (delivered
by microphone from directly outside the school cafeteria) through one's office window.
Ironically, a major slogan of the Japanese protestors is one that will seem very
familiar to most foreign readers of this article: the inhumanity of placing people
on a short-term contract system where workers may be abruptly terminated -- regardless
of performance -- at the end of a fixed contract period. The unfairness of such a
system is emphasized repeatedly. A poster hung up on Open Campus Day in Fukui, for
instance, suggests that this would be akin to treating people like animals or like
garbage. Another asks about the long-term effects of this type of system on educational
quality, suggesting that resultant job insecurity -- not to mention the inevitable
staff turnover -- would invariably disrupt the formation of student-teacher relationships,
as well as put a cap on curriculum development. As many readers will note, this is
what PALE activists have been arguing all along, only to be told how selfish and/or
how "un-Japanese" their arguments were; how ironic it is, indeed, that
our Japanese colleagues, when faced with the possibility of similar constraints,
have responded with these same arguments.
Ramifications -- and Opportunities -- for Foreign Faculty
Perhaps in anticipation of faculty and administrative protests, the Japanese government
recently moved up the desired starting date for these proposed reforms. Originally
scheduled to begin April 2003, some of these new directives may be instituted as
early as April 2001, with the time allocated to the various National Universities
to raise objections and/or come up with counter-proposals being correspondingly shortened
as well. Indeed, according to Joukoukai Nyu-su, the Japanese government hopes to
end all debate on this issue by the summer of the year 2000 (Mori, 1999, p. 1).
Considering the nature and extent of protests so far, whether the Japanese government
will get its way in this or not is still unclear. However, for foreign faculty, the
years 2001 and 2003 stand out as being especially important. Regular full-time employees
(e.g., sennin koushi, jokyoujuu, etc.) whose contracts (or visa renewals) come up
in either of these two years face a stronger than usual possibility of non-renewal,
as their terminations would count towards the 10-35% faculty-cuts sought by both
Monbusho and Prime Minister Obuchi's cabinet. Moreover, due to these cutbacks, National
University-level full-time positions for foreigners -- already at a premium -- will
necessarily become even scarcer; in other words, those who lose their jobs will have
an even harder time than usual finding new employment elsewhere.
Gaikokujin kyoushi, historically immune to these kind of issues (they are not considered
full-time faculty, so their termination would not count toward the required
faculty cuts), have their own problems. Already at some schools, they are being asked
to take pay cuts (at Fukui University, almost 15%), as well as accept greater administrative
scrutiny over the usage of their already meager (usually less than half that of "regular"
faculty) research allowances. Considering the government's emphasis on greater financial
restraint and/or spending efficiency, this trend will only continue. Hence, the biggest
selling point -- the comparatively high salaries -- to this position notoriously
lacking (with its standard one-month notice termination provisions and no retirement
benefits) in long-term prospects and job security would appear to have been removed.
Still, while these proposed new laws would severely impact upon Japanese and (to
a lesser extent) foreign employees at all National Universities in Japan, it is difficult
to argue against their necessity. In eleven years of experience in Japan, this author
has seen reform-minded schools (names -- there are several -- have been omitted)
hamstrung by their inability to terminate teachers (including one memorable case
where a teacher had been absent from class for over 10 years after being institutionalized
for schizophrenia). This author has seen teachers who consistently fail to show up
for classes, who pad their research records by plagiarizing (including one individual
who copied an essay I'd read in high school and submitted it as his own work!) or
by having their names attached to studies in which they'd never participated (a Chinese
student at one school I've worked at once came to me with a paper he'd written in
English which had the names of 11 Japanese faculty -- none of whom had assisted or
even met the author -- attached to it as co-authors), and who use government funds
for dubious research purposes (only to return with extensive picture travelogues
depicting their various overseas adventures).
These people are, of course, exceptions. By far the majority of faculty (whether
they be Japanese or non-Japanese) and staff at Japanese universities are extremely
diligent and professional, passionately committed to helping their students and working
with them towards a better future for the Japanese people. However,
the problem remains that, as the laws stand now, there is little the government can
do regarding those few malingerers whose presence saps both the financial resources
and the morale of the universities in question. The reforms proposed would change
this situation, forcing universities to become more budget-conscious and results-orientated
in the process. Indeed, if anything, the implementation of these reforms would result
in a more level playing field, for Japanese professors would, for the first time,
be placed under the same constraints, and receive the same level of scrutiny, that
foreign professors now receive as a matter of course. While the current proposals
as now written place perhaps too much emphasis on budgetary concerns (expecting National
Universities to turn themselves overnight into profit-orientated businesses is unrealistic)
to be ideal, they represent a good first-step towards finding a solution to the problems
described above.
Considering the resistance of many Japanese nationals to the government's proposed
reforms, an opportunity would also seem to exist: could not we (foreigners and Japanese
nationals) work together in order to achieve a more balanced deal with the government,
thereby improving long-term prospects for everyone? Movement towards the recognition
of this opportunity is apparent on the Japanese side. For example, in a meeting regarding
the Dokuritsu reforms held between the "LDP Educational Reform Research Group"
(Jimintou no Kyouiku Kaikaku Jisshi Honbu no Kenkyuu Chi-mu) and an action group
made up of former National University presidents, one of the few areas of agreement
was that employment conditions between Japanese nationals and foreigners should be
made the same (Fukui Shinbun, February 25, 2000). Specifically, both sides agreed
that hiring foreign faculty under conditions inferior to their Japanese counterparts
is both counterproductive to workplace unity and hamstringing efforts to get (and
keep) high quality foreign employees.
Will foreigners living in Japan be able to make anything of this opportunity? Certainly,
the answer to this depends on whether they will be able to put aside their differences
and work together for a common cause; recent history does not suggest this will be
possible. Too often, foreigners let internal divisions prevent them from forming
a united front even in defense of their common interests. Moreover, there is the
attitude of "If I don't rock the boat, maybe I will be different" among
many foreigners living in Japan, a belief egged on and excused by the perpetuation
of certain myths of cultural difference (see Dillon, 1997; Johnson & Sower, 1996;
for examples of this phenomenon). And while one can only shake one's head at the
irony of the growing list of long-time advocates of non-confrontational, so-called
"Japanese approaches" to solving labor issues who ended up suing their
former universities for unfair termination, the net result is that nothing is done
in a united fashion.
Bottom line: many long-term foreigners here -- whether because of age, marriage and/or
family situation, etc. -- cannot easily pack up and return to their own countries.
For better or for worse, they are Japanese in all but name and blood. Some are experienced
and professional about what they do; some, however, are not. The travesty is that
all, professional and unprofessional alike, are treated the same: e.g., no job security,
broken contracts and promises, lack of retirement benefits, etc. This is the current
situation. Now, as residents of Japan, should not we set about continuing to redress
these issues in what is now clearly also a Japanese fashion?
Acknowledgments:
Thanks go to Minashima Hiroshi, Tachi Kiyotaka, and Mulvey Eiko for checking my Japanese,
and to Charles Jannuzi for looking over my English. All mistakes are my own.
NOTES
1. The discussion in the following sections is a distillation of
information from the following sources: "Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjin Tsuusoku Houan,"
"Kokuritsu Daigaku no Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka ni Tsuite," and "Kokuritsu
Daigaku no Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka no Kentou no Houkou" (all three from Monbusho),
"Kokuritsu Daigaku no Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka Mondai ni Kansuru Zengaku Setsumeikai
no Kansei ni Tsuite" and "Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka Mondai ni Kansuru
Iken Oyobi Shitsumon" (both handouts prepared and distributed by the Dai Ichi
Jouchi I-Inkai), and "Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka ni Hantai Suru" (Jokoukai
Nyu-su [faculty newsletter]). To avoid the readability problems associated with multiple
citations for each sentence, specific citations are included only for points where
there is some disagreement among these 6 sources.
2. See Jokoukai Nyu-su, p. 1.
3. Monbushou (1999a), dai 1 jou (2), dai 3 jou (3), dai 5 jou, dai
8 jou (2); Monbushou (1999b), p. 3; Monbushou (1999c), p. 1.
4. Monbushou (1999a), dai 2 jou. See also, dai 14-26 jou for a more
detailed description of responsibilities.
5. Interestingly, there is no direct mention of research- and/or
education-orientated goals in the original Hoan (an oversight which has led to its
criticism B see Jokoukai Nyu-su, pg. 1; Dai Ichi Jouichi I-In Kai 1999a, 1999b).
The supplementary documents later provided by Monbushou (Monbushou [b] and Monbushou
[c]) redress this oversight.
6. Monbushou (1999c), pg. 4. See also, Monbushou (1999a), dai 34-35
jou.
7. Monbushou (1999b), pg. 2; Monbusho (1999a), dai 1 jou (2).
8. Monbushou (1999a), dai 23 jou (2), #1 & 2; dai 46 jou; dai
66 jou; Monbushou (1999c), pp. 6-9.
9. Jokoukai Nyu-su, p. 1; Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka Mondai ni Kansuru
Iken Oyobi Shitsumon, pp. 1-7.
10. Monbushou (1999a), dai 57, 59 jou; Monbushou (1999b), p. 4.
11. The following discussion is a distillation of arguments presented
in the following: "Kokuritsu Daigaku no Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka Mondai ni
Kansuru Zengaku Setsumeikai no Kansei ni Tsuite" and "Dokuritsu Gyousei
Houjinka Mondai ni Kansuru Iken Oyobi Shitsumon" (both handouts prepared and
distributed by the Dai Ichi Jouchi I-Inkai), and "Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjinka
ni Hantai Suru" (Jokoukai Nyu-su [faculty newsletter]).
REFERENCES:
Dai Ichi Jouichi I-In Kai. (1999a). Koukuritsu daigaku no dokuritsu gyousei houjinka
mondai ni kansuru zengaku setsumeikai no kaisai ni tsuite (About the all-university
meeting regarding National Universities and the concerns they have with the dokuritsu
gyousei houjinka). Handout.
Dai Ichi Jouichi I-In Kai. (1999b). Dokuritsu gyousei houjinka mondai ni kansuru
iken oyobi shitsumon (Opinions and questions regarding problems with the dokuritsu
gyousei houjinka). Handout.
Dillon, Ken. (1997). Acceptance. The Language teacher, 21 (9), 107.
'Kokuritsudai Houjin' mo kentou. (Another look at the 'National University managers').
Fukui Shinbun, February 25, 2000, p. 3.
Johnson, K. and C. Sower. (1996). Job hunting in Japan: Cross-cultural issues. The
Language Teacher, 20 (12), 26-29.
Monbushou. (1999a). Dokuritsu gyousei houjin tsuzoku hoan (The dokuritsu gyousei
houjin amendment proposals). Explanatory mailer provided to all universities by Monbushou.
Monbushou. (1999b). Kokuritsu daigaku no dokuritsu gyousei houjinka ni tsuite
(About National Universities and the dokuritsu gyousei houjinka). Explanatory mailer
provided to all National University employees by Monbushou.
Monbushou. (1999c). Kokuritsu daigaku no dokuritsu gyousei houjinka no kentou
no houkou (The dokuritsu gyousei houjinka at the National Universities: An examination
of directions). Explanatory mailer provided to all National University employees
by Monbushou.
Mori, Touru. (1999). Dokuritsu gyousei houjinka ni hantai suru (Opposing the dokuritsu
gyousei houjinka). Joukoukai Nyu-su, 4, 1-2.
Bern Mulvey is an Associate Professor at Fukui University.
OLDER DEVELOPMENTS TO BE APPRAISED ON:
UPDATE ON THE GALLAGHER CASE AT ASAHIKAWA UNIVERSITY
(for more background, see PALE Journal August 1998 at www.debito.org/PALE898.html)
By Joseph Tomei and other concerned parties
(NB: This letter appeared in the May 2000 issue of JALT's The Language Teacher as
a paid advertisement, but for the sake of follow-through on past reporting, the PALE
Journal hereby reprints it for the record.)
An Open Letter of Protest
Concerning the Asahikawa District Court decision in the Gwendolyn Gallagher Case
On February 1st, 2000, a ruling against a foreign teacher, Gwendolyn Gallagher,
was issued that could have ramifications not only for all language teachers in Japan,
but also for the educational system of Japan.
In March 1996, Professor Gallagher was dismissed from her job as full-time lecturer,
despite having worked 12 years without incident or complaint. Though legal precedent
based on the Labor Standards Law requires employers to give adequate and justifiable
reasons for dismissal, the university gave no official or unofficial reason for her
dismissal. In response, Ms. Gallagher took the university to court, demanding that
she be reinstated.
In December 1996, the court issued an injunction and in March 1997, a settlement
was reached where the university would continue to re-employ her and pay back wages.
As a gesture of reconciliation, Ms. Gallagher waived demands for monetary damages
or reimbursement of legal fees.
At the end of this subsequent year of employment, the university refused to renew
her contract, falsely claiming that the settlement made the contract a terminal one.
She then took the university to court again.
In this second lawsuit, the university did present reasons which the judge accepted,
quoting the following:
"As the plaintiff has been living in Japan for about
14 years and is also married to a Japanese, she lacked the ability to introduce firsthand
foreign culture found overseas, as is required of a teacher of level 3 classes ."
The judgement shows how arbitrary dismissals of foreigners can take place despite:
i) the long standing Japanese legal precedent that multiple renewals of contract
constitute a binding agreement between the parties which cannot be broken without
a valid reason
ii) Japan's signatory status to the International Convention on the Elimination of
all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
We believe in this case no valid reason was produced for firing Gwendolyn Gallagher
and that the university unfairly took advantage of its discriminatory hiring practice
to dismiss a foreigner, which constitutes a breach of human rights.
We also feel that the accepting the university's reasoning completely contradicts
not only to the expressly stated goals of the Ministry of Education, but also the
basis of good language education.
In addition, it does great damage to Japan's efforts to attract talented foreigners
to Japan and to improve the status of women in the workplace. Indeed, it runs counter
to the goals expressed in the report of the Prime Minister's Commission on Japan's
Goals in the 21st Century, which argue specifically for improving the status of women,
opening a debate on making English as a second official language in Japan over time
as well as calling for a permanent residence system to "encourage foreigners
who can be expected to contribute to the development of Japanese society to move
in and possibly take up permanent residence here." (from www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/houkokusyo/0120yousi.html
)
This decision should be recognized as:
We alert our Japanese and expatriate colleagues to the crippling precedent set
by this case, which in effect makes all our jobs hostage to the whims of our administrators.
While it is no coincidence that a foreign resident is the target of this decision,
such a precedent will surely be employed to harass, punish, and discard 'inconvenient'
native Japanese colleagues as well.
You can help by doing the following:
--Add your name to this letter by contacting jtomei@kumagaku.ac.jp
--Bring this matter to the attention of your colleagues and encourage them
to add their voice in support of Professor Gallagher
The list of names is being maintained at www.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~jtomei/protest.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVEMENTIONED GALLAGHER DECISION PROTEST LETTER IN JAPANESE
(courtesy www.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~jtomei/protest-j.htm)
グウェン・ギャラガー裁判における旭川地裁の判決に関する公 開抗議質問状
2000年2月1日、外国人教員グウェン・ギャラガーに対し、日本国内のすべての語学教員に対してだけでなく、日本の教育システム自体にも影響を及ぼしかねない判決がだされた。
1996年3月、ギャラガー氏は常勤講師として12年間、その間なんの事件も苦情もなく勤めてきた大学から解雇された。労働基準法に則った過去の判例では雇用者は解雇の際に妥当でかつ正当な理由をあげることが必要とされているにもかかわらず、大学側は公式非公式を問わず彼女を解雇した理由を明らかにしなかった。これをうけてギャラガー氏は復職を求めて大学を訴えた。
1996年12月、裁判所は仮処分を下し、1997年3月には大学が彼女を再雇用し、その間の給料も支払うことで和解に達した。和解の意思表示としてギャラガー氏は損害賠償金請求や裁判費用の弁済を要求することを差し控えた。
和解により再雇用されて1年後、大学は、和解では契約はこれで最終のものとなったと偽って契約更新を拒否した。そこでギャラガー氏は再び大学を訴えた。二度目の裁判では、大学は解雇理由を提示し、裁判庁もそれを受け入れた。それは以下のものである。
「原告は日本に約14年間生活しており、また、日本人と結婚もしており、レベル3のクラスの教師として必要とされる海外の生きた文化を紹介するという能力に欠けていたからだ」
この判断は外国人の解雇が以下のような事実にもかかわらず、いかに恣意的に行われるかを示している。
我々は、この件に関してグウェンギャラガー氏を解雇する何らの妥当な理由はあげられておらず、大学側は差別的な雇用慣行を不当に利用して外国人を解雇し、人権を侵害したものと考える。
また、大学側の主張を認めることは、文部省が明確に掲げている目的に反するだけではなく、健全な言語教育の基本にも矛盾するものであると思われる。加えて、日本が才能溢れる外国人を日本へ招こうとする努力や職場での女性の地位向上のための努力に多大な悪影響を与える。実際、それは、政府首相の２１世紀日本の構想の報告に述べられている目標にも反するものである。２１世紀日本の構想では女性の地位向上や英語を第二公用語としていくかどうかの検討をはじめること、また永住権のシステムを導入し、「外国人が日本に住み、働いてみたいと思うような「移民政策」が求められる。当面、日本社会の発展への寄与を期待できる外国人の移住・永住を促進する明示的な移住・永住制度を設けるべき。
」(www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/houkokusyo/0120yousi.html
) などの事柄が議論されている。
この判決は次のように認識されるべきである。
･このことで、リストラの名の下に行われるならば大学が勝手に教員を解雇する権限を認めることとなり、学問の自由をそこなうものである。
･大学側が十分に教育、研究、職業的奉仕に関する記録を認めなかったということは、日本の高等教育のシステムにとって有害である。
･政府の方針として英語教育の強化を急激に進めているというこの時期に、この件は日本の英語教育の向上に悪影響を与えるものである。
･経験や文化的感受性が語学教育者の仕事に必要な要素ではないということになり、学生にとっても不利益である。
我々は、日本人教員と外国人教員に、この裁判によって出された我々を不利な立場に追いこむこの判例に対しての注意を喚起したい。
これは、事実上、我々の職が学校行政の気紛れに左右されるといわれるに等しいのである。この判決の標的が外国人に向けられているのは明らかであるが、このような判例はきっと「不都合な」日本人教員にいやがらせをしたり、罰を与えたり、解雇することに利用されることにつながるであろう。
以下に述べる方法であなたもこの運動を支援することができます。
１）jtomei@kumagaku.ac.jp にメールを送り、この手紙にあなたの署名を加えて下さい。
２）この事柄を同僚の人々に知ってもらい、ギャラガー氏への支援を求めて下さい。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB: Dave Aldwinckle has a website concerning this case at www.debito.org/activistspage.html#gwenupdate2100.
On the same page can be found a rebuttal by one of Asahikawa University's unions
(now disbanded), a response by David Aldwinckle, as well as pegs of Asahikawa University's
original affadavit, jpegs of relevant portions of the judge's ruling (in Japanese),
a brief message from Gwen concerning this second dismissal. In addition, an email
exchange on the problematic nature of AU's definition of culture between Bob March,
currently a visiting lecturer at the University of New South Wales, and Gwen Gallagher,
may also be found at www.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~jtomei/
gwen/margal.htm
Joseph Tomei is a tenured Assistant Professor at the Department
of Foreign Languages, Kumamoto Gakuen University.
What follows is a brief summary of some points in an article published in the Kumamoto
Nichinichi Newspaper (Feb. 24, 2000):
On the 23rd of this month (February 2000) two foreign teachers at the Prefectural
University of Kumamoto were told that their employment will end in March. They were
also told that they would have to vacate their (university-owned) apartments. On
the same day, the teachers sent a formal document calling for stable employment and
the revocation of the demand to vacate their apartments.
The battle is expected to continue in the courts, with the teachers filing suit against
the university.
The entire article (in Japanese) can be read at www.kumanichi.co.jp/dnews/20000224/
kiji1_0000001567.html, and we reproduce it here for the record:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
県、打ち切り通告 県立大学の任用更新問題
外国人教員任用更新問題で県立大学（手島孝学長）は二十三日までに、非常勤特別職の外国人教員二人に対し、今年三月末での任用打ち切りと、その後の宿舎明け渡し要求などを文書で通告した。教員側は同日、県と大学側に明け渡し要求の撤回と安定雇用を求める要求書を内容証明で発送した。
教員側の要求書では、任用は一年任期更新の繰り返しで、期限の定めのない労働契約となっており解雇権は乱用できないとし、「外国人差別に基づいた恣意（しい）的な任用行為は憲法違反」と主張している。
この問題では昨年三月末、県地方労働委員会で一年間の任用更新と、その間に協議をすることで和解が成立した。
教員側は「和解では、二人が常勤職員としての採用を希望していることを双方が理解するとの条項があるのに、大学側は誠実な協議をしてこなかった」と反発。今後、県側に対し法的措置を講じる方針。
大学側は「任用打ち切りは昨年の和解に基づくもので、教員側は説明を聞いた上で本年度の任用通知に署名している。更新や常勤職としての採用予定はない」との姿勢を変えていない。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very important point, which doesn't come out clearly enough in the article, is
that the university has attempted, on the one hand, to use the two teachers as full-time
(_sennin_) staff, even sending documents to the Ministry of Education declairing
them to be full-time (_sennin_), while, on the other hand, arguing that they can
dismiss the teachers whenever they like because they are "part time." I
don't think the university should be allowed tohave it both ways. They have declaired
the teachers to be _sennin_, they have had them do _sennin_ work, so they should
treat them as _sennin_. (In Japan, _sennin_ faculty cannot be fired unless they have
made some serious mistake. The university is not claiming that the teachers have
done anything wrong. They are just saying "We don't need you any more.")
This, I think, is the problem in an nutshell. If you want to know more, a wealth
of information is available from the homepages (which I am doing my best to maintain)
of the supporters of the teachers. Here are their addresses:
www.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~masden/mamorukai/english/Ehome.htm
(English)
www.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~masden/mamorukai/index.html
(Japanese)
Also, I think the following summary by Farrell Cleary is very helpful:
====
"Unlike their Japanese colleagues, all of the _senninkyouin_ foreign teachers have limited employment terms. Moreover, many of the full-time (_senninkyouin_) foreign teachers (eight out of thirteen in 1997) had been employed as Special Part-Time Irregular Foreign Teachers. Employing full-time teachers on part-time contracts is of course contradictory. [The Ministry of Education has since confirmed this.] None of the full-time (senninkyouin) Japanese teachers at the Prefectural University of Kumamoto are employed in this way. The teachers formed the Kumamoto General Union and submitted claims to the University and Kumamoto Prefecture in July 1997, asking for an end to the discriminatory practices, and for all the full-time foreign teachers to be employed in the same way as their full-time Japanese colleagues.
"Formal negotiations between the Union and the Prefectural University began in October 1997, and continued until broken off by the President of the University, Dr. Teshima Takashi, in February 1998. The University rejected all demands, repeating only that their employment practices were 'appropriate' (_tekitou_). The President said that this was a problem concerning appointment, and that it was a management matter which could not be the subject of negotiations. The University then imposed worse contracts on the Special, Part-Time, Irregular Foreign Teachers in an apparent attempt to crush the Union.
"The University and Prefecture refused repeated requests for negotiations and the union staged a one-day strike in June 1998. Rather than talk, the University then decided to get get rid of the problem by getting rid of both the contentious posts and the teachers filling them. All six teachers working on the one year contracts were given notice that their contracts would not be renewed at the end of March, 1999. As a result of a strong campaign of support for the teachers by their support group and union and fortuitous personnel decisions by Faculty hiring committees, five of the six were rehired in April 1999, three on three-year foreign staff contracts and two on the old, one-year contracts. (One had left for work at another university.)
"Promises of further talks made during a settlement brokered by the Regional Labour Commission have borne no fruit and the University has remained adamant that it reemployed the two teachers for one year, and one year only. The University has spurned opportunities to re-hire the two teachers, Cynthia Worthington and Sandra Mitchell, who are the President and Vice-President respectively of their union, the Kumamoto General Union.
"As of April 1, 2000, the two teachers are officially unemployed and are living off their savings. They are seeking a fast-track court injunction from the courts to help resolve this dispute.
Kirk Masden is a tenured Assistant Professor at private-sector Kumamoto
Gakuin University.
Farrell Cleary is a gaikokujin kyouin on a three-year contract at the Prefectural
University of Kumamoto, having been rehired from his old position as a Special Part-Time
Irregular Foreign Teacher in April 1999.
PALE JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES, SPRING 2000, ENDS