Job Discussion Forums

[alicantik]

When I did my TESOL certifiate back in 2000, I remember reading a newspaper article about a lady who taught in Japan for 11 years. She had lost her job as the school where she was teaching no longer considered her to be a 'native teacher', as she had become fluent in Japanese. If anyone knows any web links to articles or stories similar to this, could you please let me know?

Thanks...

[JZer]

I don't know the article but there are native English speakers in Jamaica and they would not qualify for a visa in many countries.

[Glenski]

It's not because she was fluent in Japanese. Knowing the language perfectly did not make her, in the eyes of her university, a non-native English speaking person. Because she had not made frequent trips back home, she was not up to date on many things, and she had lost a sense for what was happening back there. I believe she was teaching some cultural courses, so the university felt she no longer had that fresh point of view or frame of mind to represent those courses. That's how they defined her losing her "nativeness".

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg11725.html
Gallagher loses Asahikawa U dismissal court case
Dave Aldwinckle
Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:49:13 -0800

JUDICIAL SUPPORT OF ANTI-INTERNATIONALIZATION IN JAPAN
AND DISREGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW BY JAPAN'S OWN COURTS

THE GALLAGHER COURT CASE UPDATE FEB 2, 2000

HEADLINE: FEB 1, 2000:
DISTRICT COURT QUASHES GALLAGHER CLAIMS OF UNFAIR JOB DISMISSAL

Decision cites "the relative decrease in the role of English-language
education" (eigo kyouiku no yakuwari ga soutaiteki ni teika shiteiru), and
officially affirms a university's right to fire a foreigner due to length of
stay in Japan and marriage to a Japanese national.

///////////////////////////////////////////////

BACKGROUND

The Asahikawa Gallagher Case has set an important precedent for the
employment rights of Japan's private-sector non-Japanese educators.
Yesterday's ruling has ominous implications for private-sector Japanese
workers as well.

Gwendolyn Gallagher, a non-Japanese married to a Japanese with children and
property, was fired from her contracted English instructor post in 1996 at
Asahikawa University (AU), a private university in Asahikawa, Hokkaido.
Although Japan's Labor Standards Law (roudou kijun hou) requires an
"applicable and rational reason" (soutouteki na gouriteki na riyuu) for the
dismissal of private-sector workers, AU never gave a reason, officially or
informally, to justify it. Gallagher, who had worked there for twelve years
without complaint from the faculty or the student body, took AU to court.
In court depositions, the university, when pressed for justification by the
judge, stated that Gallagher's long tenure at the school gave rise to her
being over-"Japanized" (nipponaizu), voiding her ability to teach foreign
culture to students; moreover in several affidavits (see URL below), AU also
noted that they needed "fresh foreigners" (furesshu na gaikokujin). In sum,
AU alleges that her dismissal was 1) an issue of a foreign teacher's expired
"shelf life" and 2) the school's right to refuse to renew a contract. These
are matters that Gallagher's fellow longer-term Japanese-national educators
never contend with and are legally protected against.

In 1997, the court ruled in Gallagher's favor with an injunction
(karishobun), and AU agreed to reinstate her with back pay in a settlement
(wakai) on the same terms as before. However, AU then three months later
refused to renew her contract for the next year, falsely alleging that "the
settlement was done with the understanding that the new one-year contract
was terminal". Hence despite the court rulings, Gallagher was fired twice.
Gallagher took AU to court again, and on February 1, 2000, 1:05 pm,
Asahikawa District Court Chief Judge Saiki Norio read the decision: AU was
justified in firing plaintiff Gallagher.

The legal reasoning reflected the university's position entirely, and
confoundingly so. As reported in Hokkaido Shinbun, Feb 2, 2000, page 30,
"The university is carrying out a reformation of language education, to give
students a wide variety of languages to choose from. If one thinks about
the relative decrease in the role of English language education, there is an
objective and rational reason for refusing the renewal of the contract."
(asahikawa daigaku wa tayou na gengou o gakusei ni sentaku saseru gogaku
kyouiku kaikaku o okonatte ori, eigo kyouiku no yakuwari ga soutouteki ni
teika shiteiru koto nado o kangaeru to, keiyaku koushin kyohi ni wa
kyakkanteki gouriteki riyuu ga aru). As for the shelf-life of Gallagher as
an educator, the court ruling itself (page 63) states, "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] ." (mata, genkoku
wa nihonjin to kon'in shite yaku juuyon nenkan mo nihon de seikatsu shiteita
kara, kaigai ni okeru chokkin no gaikoku bunka o shoukai suru nouryoku o
youkyuu sareru reberu III no tantou kyouin to naru koto mo dekinakatta).
The judge also noted the present economic recession and declining student
population, saying (page 64), "In order to survive as an attractive
university, it is crucial that education reform be decisively carried out,
beginning with foreign language education, in which the plaintiff's
usefulness has become relatively low." (miryoku aru daigaku to shite
ikinokoru tame ni wa gogaku kyouiku kaikaku o hajime to suru kyouiku kaikaku
o dankou suru koto ga hitsuyou fukaketsu na jousei ni ari... genkoku no
hitsuyousei ga soutaiteki ni teika shi[ta]...)

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS

The Gallagher Case ruling hereby sets a dangerous legal precedent for all
expatriate language teachers; it assumes that job qualification also
requires the abstract concept of "foreignness", which, by Judge Saiki's
opinion, can be lost if educators live here too long or take steps in their
personal life to assimilate. Moreover, if this undefined "intellectual
staleness" becomes a measure of professionality, how will Japanese-national
educators fare? This precedent may well permit wanton firings of all
long-term faculty, particularly through its equating the inevitable passage
of time with justifiable dismissability. All in the name of carrying out
"reforms" to "make universities appealing" at all costs.

More importantly, this irresponsible ruling will further destabilize the
Japanese education system because it ignores labor laws. Foreign educators
have always been systematically vulnerable; they have with few exceptions
been hired on contracted, temporary positions--dismissable by simple
non-renewal (full-time Japanese nationals, however, without exception had
been tenured from day one). The problem is that Japan changed the laws in
1997 to permit full-time contractural employment for Japanese nationals as
well. This means that everyone regardless of nationality is fair game for
dismissal, increasingly, as the Gallagher case shows, for reasons at the
university's discretion. If the treatment of foreign contracted workers
hitherto is any guide, dismissals of educators will now become matters of
politics and economics and unrelated to professionality or qualification.

The most important fact to stress today is that the courts have hereby
emasculated the laws that are designed to protect private-sector workers.
The Gallagher Case is a test case because, unlike other egregious foreigner
dismissals (cf. Vaipae at Niigata, Korst at Okinawa, Kumamoto Kendai),
Asahikawa University is not a national or public university employing
educators as civil servants. AU is a private university, and therefore all
employees are covered under the Labor Standards Law, which reserves the
private-sector employee's right to expect contract renewal unless there is
that "applicable and rational" reason for dismissal. Unquantifiable
"over-Japaneseness" and irrelevant conjugal choices do not fall under that
rubric. In sum, the court ignores not only two years of testimony that
never obviated the connection between AU's purported curriculum change and
Gallagher's dismissal, but also basically affirms the right of the
university to do as it pleases--firing anybody it doesn't like and blaming
economics (although the record demonstates that AU took no other
cost-cutting measures, contrarily buying land and raising expenses in the
interim).

The bottom line: a simple extrapolation shows that increasingly-contracted
Japanese full-timers can fall into the same categories as Gallagher, where
personal matters now easily enable administrators to cut staff in the name
of reform.

Gallagher will be appealing this decision to a higher court. For the sake
of all educators in Japan, let us hope for a more responsible and humanistic
ruling.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

1) A fuller background of this and most cases cited above (with court
documents) may be found in the JALT PALE Journal of Professional Studies,
back issues at http://www.voicenet.co.jp/~davald/PALEJournals.html

[PAULH]

The Gallagher case is covered in more detail here

http://www.debito.org/activistspage.html#ninkisei

It wasnt that she didnt become a non-native speaker but after 15 years in Japan the school felt she wasnt as qualified to teach American culture, even though she was qualified enough when they hired her.

They felt she was less fresh and too Japanised to speak with any authority about her own culture after so long in Japan, really just an excuse to bring in someone younger and fresh, than a middle-aged American women.

[Celeste]

Do Japanese universities grant research sabbaticals to professors? If they hadn't allowed a foreign professor sabbaticals in which to go back to their native country and research local trends, teaching methods, cultural shifts, etc. then wouldn't the university be at fault for creating a "stale foreigner". Was this case really about looks? By fresh foreigner, did they really mean young and pretty? Or was this case about getting a younger, easier to manipulate person in there? Universities are so much about politics, I would be surprised if we are getting anywhere near the whole story.

[PAULH]

[moonraven]

Why is the same article being posted here? Are there no space restrictions? I read it the first time.

The case is not a case at all--it's a judge backing up the university's position. If it had happened in Latin America we would have asked how much the judge received for the ruling....

So they discriminated against the woman because she was a foreigner--not providing her with the same professional development opportunities that are part of the package for Japanese professors. And then they discriminated against her because she was too "nipponized"--a condition caused by her failure to receive the same professional developement opportunities, etc. etc. etc.

In layman's terms: what a crock.

[Glenski]

moonraven,
I posted the link and copied/pasted the whole article for a reason. On the link, you can find other related info.

As for "space limitations", you should talk. You post entire articles yourself. Note page 3 of this thread just for one example.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/job/viewtopic.php?t=22703&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
And three articles in a row on the same thread (below)!
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/job/viewtopic.php?t=22690&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

[PAULH]

[ls650]

[ls650]

PAULH was kind enough to PM me with a couple of job postings that ask for a PhD under age 35.

My post wasn't made to deny that this is true, but rather to ask what portion of PhD candidates will be under 35. I would imagine it's a relatively small number. Am I wrong..?

[PAULH]

[Zero Hero]

[ls650]

[moonraven]

I completed my BA at 21, MA at 23, taught full time for 3 years at a university, completed my PhD at 27. More than half of the folks in my PhD program were 3 years younger than I was, as they had not taken any time out to teach full time. Most of them finished at 25. That was pretty typical back in the early 70s.

MOD EDIT