Korea Herald on Fake Degrees
by Brendon Carr
I’m quoted today in the Korea Herald on the topic of fake degrees for English teachers and possible punishments under Korean law (in your print edition, page 18). The Herald seems to have hired some former English teachers as reporters, as the slant of coverage in that paper has veered perilously toward being the crusader for English teachers’ rights (which are often abused fairly outrageously, but still...).
The article repeats the usual canards about how harsh the Korean system is on English teachers, while perfidious hagwon owners are coddled. Dark racist consipracy is implied by a quote from a disgruntled English teacher who says we hear about foreigners getting punished all the time, but we never hear about hagwon owners being punished.
This may not be fair. Criminal and civil proceedings are, in general, secret. The courtroom is open to the public, but judgments and sentences are generally not published. When an appellate or Supreme Court precedent is noteworthy enough to be published, the names of the parties are sanitized. It’s therefore not possible to (lawfully) do a criminal background investigation on an individual, nor is it possible to find out if a given person has a string of judgments against her. Except in the case that a newspaper reporter decides to attend the trial and report on the proceedings, we will never know about anything that happens in court.
Is the media biased against foreigners? Perhaps. But the judiciary (by this I mean the court, not including the prosecution), while not perfect, is probably the straightest institution in Korea.
UPDATE 11/28: Eagle-eyed reader Sean Hayes of the Korean Law Blog has pointed out on his blog today that Brendon is wrong when he says “The US Constitution does not recognize a right to privacy.” And he cites Roe v. Wade as a leading example of a Constitutional case built around an inferred right to privacy. Doh!—he’s right. (My own favorite is Loving v. Virginia.)
There is no express mention of “privacy” in the United States Constitution. The Constitutional “right to privacy” is an inferred right, constructed by interpretations of the limits on government powers in the Constitution—notably, its First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But where I would differ from Sean (he’s the Constitutional scholar, though, and I’m merely a working commercial lawyer) is that these amendments to the Constitution do not create the kind of atmosphere in our American society where the workings of the government are kept secret from the people on privacy grounds.
Comments
3 Responses to This Entry
Comments Policy: Comments to Korea Law Blog are moderated. This means abusive, or just plain stupid comments will be deleted. So don't be a jerk. It also means there may be some delay from the time you post a comment to the time it shows up here. If your comment wasn't against the policy, it will show up in a little bit.
-
About Korea Law Blog
Korea Law Blog is brought to you by Brendon Carr, an American lawyer working as a foreign legal consultant for more than 10 years in Seoul. (Brendon is not admitted as an attorney in Korea. But you knew that.) -
Contact Details
-
Tel. +82 (0)2 772 2734
Fax +82 (0)2 772 2800
Mobile +82 (0)10 8788 0750 -
Download My FREE Korea Employment Law FAQ
-
Korean Media
-
Blogroll
-
Hi Brendon:
Like your blog a lot. Very useful and interesting.
I would be very interested to learn why criminal cases are not published in Korea. Is Korea an exception or the norm (and places like Canada and the USA the exceptions)? Are legal community and people in general in Korea happy with their less transparent system?
I’ve come to discover through my career that the United States is exceptional in almost all respects. Best legal system, finest public parks, most fat people, best episodic television, most delicious hot dogs, etc. It’s just a very different place from the rest of the world. And Korea is very different as well. Just not in the same ways.
The Korean Constitution recognizes a right to privacy. The US Constitution does not—we come from the proverbial “open society”. While both countries subscribe to the idea that the courts do “the people’s business”, Korea is much more conservative about balancing the people’s ownership of the judiciary against the individual’s right to privacy.
The Korea Herald also exists to serve its readership - and for the most part, its foreign readership are English teachers. It may be true that the Korea Herald has some staff writers advocating rights for English Teachers.
What is generally missed is that improving the rights of English Teachers would benefit the thousands of other migrant workers - for migrants we are - who are muct more vulnerable to abuse than your average E-2 teacher, and do much to improve Korea’s image and reputation abroad.