Full disclosure, even though I'm not a journalist. I'm just a blogger, bud:
Tony's a buddy of mine. I hung out with him on one of his Seoul trips, we had a good time, and have hung out from time to time since then. Now for some of you, that might mean you now believe you can ignore everything I'm about to say...but you'd be wrong.
OK.
You know that scene in The Dark Knight, where Batman throws the gang leader, Sal Maroni, off a low fire escape, and Maroni says, "No one's gonna tell you anything. They're wise to your act. You got rules. The Joker, he's got no rules. No one's gonna cross him for you."
See, basically, Batman has to follow rules, and The Joker doesn't... this has always bothered me about action movies. If I were an evil villain, I'd just keep endangering civilians, or get several of my henchmen to do it, and any evil plan I had would succeed, because good guys have to save innocents. In real life, every superhero's life would go like this scene (though not always in Italian): they wouldn't stand a chance against someone who had no scruples.
Well, Tony, Public Relations Officer for ATEK, mentioned to me, in a phone call, after I'd sent him a text message meant to crack him up, that the internet trolls and the folks at Dave's ESL Cafe were really going to town on his character. I asked him to send me the link: I never go to Dave's myself, for reasons which should become clear. He also connected me to the ATEK forming blog, where he deals with some of the issues that came up.
And the crazy thing is, the way that the Dave's ESL Cafe people have been going at him has actually reminded me of that scene in Spiderman.
See, Tony is representing an organization. That organization is getting itself set up, and it wants to make life better for English teachers in Korea. Because of his position, and what his organization wants to achieve, he has to watch, very carefully, every single word he says online, because he knows that every single word he says would, be thrown gleefully in his face at the worst possible moment, by any one of his detractors. This means, while the anonymous critics can pretty much say anything they want to about Tony, he has to follow a set of rules on how he can answer, and be mindful of everything he says in response, no matter how petty or nasty it gets. It's like watching someone fend off a mob with one arm tied behind his back, if you go and read what they're saying about him.
If you want to go
I'd start quoting, but that'd take over the entire post...
A while back, I wrote about why I think the internet, as it is now, will never reach its full potential for social good.
The lowest, ugliest, nastiest commenters set the parameters for the entire discussion. Repeat: it is the stupidest and worst, not the smartest and best comment, that sets the tone for the entire comment board.About those critics, then:
One of my favorite quotes is Benjamin Disraeli's "It is easier to be critical than correct" -- it's a worthwhile axiom to remember when spending time on the internet, because there are always a lot more people willing to comment, "You suck!" than to actually sit down and create their own, better blog, homepage, video, or whatever.
Well, a bit more than a year ago an expat died in a fire, and his school had set him up without health insurance, to save on taxes or somesuch.
A few other expats noticed that when Bill Kapoun's fire happened, there was nothing, nothing in place to help him, and they wanted to do something so that next time something like that happened, there WOULD be. The English teacher scapegoating continued in the Korean media. Even lawmakers bought into stereotypes that had no actual statistical grounding.
And so, ATEK made their first move, after putting pieces in place: the "Equal Checks For All" campaign, which included filing complaints with the Korean National Human Rights Commission, kind of a media blitz, and a few weeks later, the opening of ATEK to new members.
Some people didn't like a part of ATEK's strategy, because they thought it would make life difficult for F-series visa holders with teaching jobs. Fair enough. ATEK listened to that criticism, and adjusted their proposed chapter organization structure to incorporate F-series visa holders more significantly in the decision-making process. Tony thought it was important to get online and engage in these discussions, to hit up comment boards and explain the positions, get in up to his elbows and hear what people say. He, and ATEK, made a decision to engage on this level. He put his real name out there, he put work and money into trying to get this thing off the ground, and he waded into the fray to take every lump people could throw at him, knowing full well that he couldn't respond in kind when somebody got mean. That takes two big brass ones, and he deserves props for deciding to take it on.
This, however, was not enough for some. They continued attacking ATEK, demanding it disband, demanding an apology from these guys for their presumption (how dare they think English teachers ought to be organized, represented and defended: don't they know Hogwan owners do a good enough job of standing up for expat teachers' rights? Just ask Bill Kapoun!) As time went by, the attacks got more varied and personal, focusing more and more on Tony, as ATEK's PR Representative. From their safe place of anonymity, their spaghetti offensive (throw enough spaghetti at a wall and some of it's bound to stick) poked and prodded into the book ATEK wrote (and from which they have not profited at all, by the way), and the personal background of Tony in particular. You can follow the different angles of attack here (warning: this thread is long and poisonous).
And what have these critics suggested we do instead? Where do they think expat English teachers should go instead, if not to ATEK, when boss fires them two weeks before they collect their completion bonus? Hell if I know: they probably don't even care, anyway -- just as long as they can keep feeling righteous and attacking their new whipping boys. Suggest a way to improve the situation for E-series visas, while maintaining the status quo for F-visas? Can I just go after Tony's character instead?
And here we are, folks. Yeah, it's easier to criticize than to be correct. Sure. The vocal critics over at Dave's are really comfortable either totally or mostly anonymous at their computers, digging up nasty things to say about Tony and his boys.
But Tony's trying. He's sticking his neck out, he's sticking his name out. His real name. He's standing in front of cameras and standing FOR SOMETHING, and what the hell are they doing? Dick-all, that's what. Nothing but tearing down something that could do a lot of good for a lot of people, because they didn't like ATEK's first move.
Now that they've already made up their minds about ATEK, even though Tony and ATEK have finished their "Equal Checks For All" campaign and are working on getting ATEK organized into its decision-making chapters, after which the full group can get to the business of choosing strategies that represent its members (not just the ideas of a few guys). But trolls are still attacking, and getting more and more personal, too. They're not dealing with the ideas or principles of ATEK anymore at all (if they ever were): they're dealing with Tony's personal history, and trying to dig up any skeleton they can to discredit him.
I'm mad. Tony's a pal of mine, and he's been pushed to the line by some of the garbage that's been flung at him, and you know what? The people doing the flinging are cyphers: nothings. They're hiding in foxholes throwing rocks, and even so, ATEK tried to make sure their needs were also represented. And this helps English teachers in Korea how? Are these critics trying to establish some other kind of representation for English teachers, so that hogwan owners can't keep ripping us off, so that the Korean media stops stereotyping us as drug-using kiddie-fiddlers? Are they offering a viable alternative to ATEK, one that would make them more comfortable with its goals and strategies? No. That would take effort, administrative skill, risk, and hope. Instead, they're just going to keep ripping at those who ARE trying to do accomplish something.
And then, when they get what they want (breaking news: on the comment thread Tony says he's had it with the character assassination) here's what ChickenLover says
We will have won when you[Tony] leave this country broken, blacklisted and when your name is a symbol of deceit, lies and a perfect example of what NOT to be in Korea. Only when your name is ruined will I be satisfied.And what's your real name, ChickenLover? Hiding behind anonymity, are you? Straphanger (is that your first name or your last name?) adds, "One down, two to go." Classy, guys. Really classy.
I'm here, online. My name is Robert Ouwehand. I'm not an expert or a lawyer, but my name is attached to my words, and I know when I see somebody's good intentions get shat on, at this point, just for the sake of shitting on someone, and that's wrong, folks. It's wrong. There are people trying to build something, and these buzzards are trying to pull it apart before it has a chance to get on its feet and do some good FOR THEM, TOO.
Back when Mike Hurt called me up and suggested the idea of a community-focused metablog, I said, "Giddyap" for a reason: because there are enough of us out here that we can form a worthwhile community, and when push comes to shove, we need to have each-other's backs, and know someone's got our backs, 'cause the Hogwan owners aren't going to stick up for us, and if politicians can win votes by scapegoating us, they will, because we don't vote anyway, and we're an easy target: many of us look different, few of us have the language skills to defend ourselves in the Korean media where we're being slurred, and those of us who do have the language chops often don't stick their necks out, for whatever reason. There are some who have suggested that expats will never form a viable community, because there are too many different interests all at odds with each other. And when I see something like the train-wreck that is the Dave's ESL Cafe ATEK Thread, I sometimes despair that such cynics are right.
Frankly, these character assassins remind me of another group of noisy, self-righteous assholes:
Remember the beef protests?Thuggish tactics? Refusing to acknowledge the reasonable concessions made (canceling the canal, renegotiating the beef deal/new F visa representation in ATEK's administrative structure) and insisting on unreasonable concessions regardless of attempts at engagement? Never offering the benefit of the doubt? Making increasingly vicious personal attacks on someone, rather than engaging in ideas in the manner of solution-oriented and productive discourse? Jumping on someone before they've even had a chance to show more than the barest smidgen of what they're about? All check. The lynching Tony and ATEK are experiencing at Dave's remind me of those left-wing thugs, attacking police in order to try and provoke a response and win more propaganda video of police brutality. It's mean, it's unscrupulous, and there's a total refusal to engage on the level where something might actually get accomplished...one begins to suspect it's because they know that on THAT level, they've got nothing, so all they can do is get dirty.
So here's what I say.
Hey guys. If you're so against what ATEK wants to do, then join it, enter the decision making process, help ATEK come up with its long-term strategy, and help them in trying to make life better for English teachers. Instead of undermining an attempt to form a more cohesive community, and then complaining that it doesn't represent you, how about joining it, to make sure it DOES represent you? Or form your own organization, put your own real names out there, stand in front of the cameras yourselves, and actually stand for something, instead of just hunkering in foxholes, throwing rocks at those who are trying. How about that? If you know what's best for English teachers, if you know better than ATEK, then get on board and make sure that's the direction they go, or provide a better option! Build something yourselves, instead of just tearing at what others are trying to build.
Or are you all talk? If you know better, then back it up, because right now, somebody's trying to make Korea a better place for English teachers, but it's not you. If you think they're misguided, CORRECT them. I bet they'd listen if you weren't busy trying to defame them all!
And until you put your money where your mouth is, the way Tony and ATEK have, I have nothing but disdain for you and your methods, anonymous cowards. And come on: I'm Roboseyo. I never talk like this. I'm the I love everything guy.
But there's the gauntlet. Do what you like with it.
For me, hell, I'm going to be a builder, not a wrecker of things. The Hub of Sparkle is meant to be a place where people can connect. I organize get-togethers and try to make a community available. I write a regular column in the Korea Herald about ways expats can get connected with each other, and with communities in Korea. Belonging to a community adds value, adds enjoyment, adds meaning to a place and an experience, whether you're in Korea for one year or twelve, and if I can help create a forum that facilitates that kind of community, groovy.
Sure, it's a work in progress, but I'm trying to build something, so that maybe the expat population will eventually add up to more than the sum of its parts. That's a worthy and worthwhile pursuit, even if it takes up a lot of my time, even if only two people show up at the coffee shop for the next meetup, because those two people might have found something they were looking for.
To the people who are at home, digging up another character attack on Tony and the other ATEK members, hey, maybe you should come to my next group get-together. It might remind you what it's like to be part of something, instead of being stuck tearing things apart. Who knows. You might even have a good time. And if you don't come out, fine. But think about this. Are you going to be a builder, or a wrecker? Because in Korea's expat population, and in the thousands of English teachers, the parts are there to build something worthwhile, and from where I stand, it looks like you'd prefer us to remain isolated, hung out to dry, and vulnerable to scapegoating and exploitation, repeating the mistakes of our predecessors and unsure where to go when things go wrong. Prove me wrong, either by supporting the people who are trying to improve things, or pulling together your own attempt to do what ATEK is (according to you) failing to do (before you've even given them the time to allow their members to set their new agenda), or by getting out of the fucking way.
Put up or shut up, or, to let Woody Allen have the last word:
"Be fruitful and multiply, but not in those words."
[update]: after finally catching some actual heat from the outside for being a poisonous miasma of trolls and haters, Dave's Esl Cafe has taken down the ATEK thread that got so badly out of hand. Their excuse? "We're busy with construction."
from their "
As you all know (or maybe you don't), we are having a lot of construction going on..... So, we moderators are busy and don't have time to deal with the ad-hominems of ad-hominems on the ATEK thread. The site is slow.Convenient, guys. Convenient. For the sake of Tony, I hope it stays down. For the sake of Dave's ESL Cafe's credibility, I hope it's restored, so everybody gets to see and remember how worthless it is to go there to talk about anything.
We may or not bring that thread back. We are just busy as we said dealing with many matters and things are slow on the site.
89 comments:
Roboseyo,
I am one of the 'anonymous cowards' on Dave's, and I have been a critic of ATEK for some time. I was never been a critic of their initial intentions, and was somewhat kind in my initial dealings with them. I will go so far as to agree with you that the Dave's thread got way out of hand, and I acknowledge that as somebody who has contributed to it.
(I posted under my 'anonymous' username because it takes so long to get a new one there, though I have made enough cross-posts with the same content that it is obvious to anybody following the issue what my name is on Dave's.)
The problem has never been about ATEK's intentions. It has been with their handling of mistakes, and their inability to accept criticism in a timely fashion. A new organisation is bound to make mistakes, and I think everybody recognises that. The real issue has been the inability to recognise that mistakes have been made and act upon them.
A number of Dave's posters commented early on that 'equal checks' was a poorly conceived idea, yet those concerns were dismissed. Dave's got noisier. They mistakes were then half-heartedly explained. Dave's got noisier still, and the "official ATEK Discussion" thread were told that ATEK was not going to listen to anybody any more. Discussion over.
A the end of the campaign there was an apology, and people welcomed it.
Then the book was launched. Accusations of plagiarism were made on Dave's, and were initially dismissed. Dave's got louder and the accusations of "a serious academic crime" (your words) spilled over to Hub of Sparkle.
The accusations were then acknowledged, along with a half-hearted apology, on a personal blog. Comments were moderated. Serious questions were dismissed repeatedly with comments such as "I chose not to answer that one". I received an email for a comment that never saw the light of day, and out of respect for your friend I will adhere to his legal notice not to publish it. It was not very 'professional'.
ATEK said early on that they represent some 20,000 English teachers in Korea. They claim that this was a label that the media gave them, yet an ATEK press release claims they are the voice of 25,000 English teachers in South Korea. They are NOT my voice, and I want them to acknowledge that by revising their numbers to something reflecting reality, or by adding to the statement "with the exception of Mike Yates". They chose to ignore that.
My life is in Korea. My wife and child are here. Every objection that I (and other critics) have had of ATEK have followed the same cycle: Ignore, semi-apologise, and then censor.
Regardless of who ATEK do speak for, they do not speak for me. I want them to acknowledge that in some way. If they want to assume that the 'silent majority' are in agreement with them, that is fine, but they should not have ignore critics. This is a democratic nation, yet I had no say in being represented by them. Would it really hurt for them to say 400, or 4,000 teachers?
ATEK installed themselves as the leaders of the teaching community and refused to acknowledge criticism until acknowledgement was long overdue. That was their real failing, and that is why the Dave's thread ended the way it did.
You are the second person to suggest that critics of ATEK should join. When that was first suggested (by ATEK), 2 things came to my mind:
1 - It makes no sense. If I join, they can rightfully claim to be my voice.
2 - I would never join the BNP (fascist UK political party) to show my opposition - why would I join ATEK?
I think it is good that you have opened this debate, as the Korean blogosphere needs it. I only wish one of the high profile bloggers were willing to be more vocal in their criticism of ATEK. Dave's is not the ideal forum for these discussions. Unfortunately, it is all we have.
I respect your position and personally agree with it. Take this as a sign of the times. Dave's is on the downhill slope. Newcomers are smart enough to know that Dave's is no-fly-zone for logic and validity. Respectable, legitimate organizations like ATEK will always trump online netizens any day of the week.
Did ATEK make a mistake? Sure. Can the problem be fixed? I think so. Does it affect the overall goal of ATEK? No.
Let's take this as a good sign. If the anonymous at Dave's don't like ATEK's purpose, then something good is happening.
Don't lose heart. Of course it would get worse before it got better...but consider the source of these attacks. Are these comments made by council members? Politicians? Prominent business owners? Respected community members? Then why would anyone care? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their right to express it but let's not lose focus - ATEK's work is more substantial than the electronic writings of a few jaded and socially removed expatriates.
Perhaps some of the attacks come from Tony's past. I can't speak to that because you would have to ask each attacker.
Perhaps my opinion is just as biased. I mean, I want to believe in an organization that is recognized like ATEK instead of the questionable support community on Dave's. So of course, I want to support ATEK over Dave's any day of the week. It's time for change, right? Isn't everyone tired of using secondhand knowledge and hearsay as their source of information?
I'm willing to consent that perhaps ATEK isn't the answer. Maybe it paves the way for another organization. Either way, it has potential to do some good in Korea for a lot of expats - future and present.
Thanks for the post Rob.
Rob,
I stand with you when I use my real name. It's been awhile since I have read the utter disgust of ESLCafe, and can no longer recommend it as either a safe or fair place... With that said, there is a big difference between honest mistakes where one doesn't profit, and malicious mistakes where one does whatever they can to make money, gain position / power, etc.
I see no malicious mistakes on Tony's part. He's not on a power trip, not made any money from the book I'm sure took many months to write (I've written a 300 page book before, so I know how long it takes), and has stuck his neck out to try and make your life better in some indirect or direct way. To beat him up over some old indiscretions or unintended plagiarism is like suing the doctor that did his best to help you out.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Trolls / 'truth tellers' / people with too much time online - let's check your background and make sure you are who you say you are. Let's check your computer for pirated movies / music. Still feel like flinging mud?
The first good explanation of what motivates the anti-ATEK reactionaries...
By Straphanger of Dave's ESL writes:
"But ... I like my foxhole. I don't want to come out. People like you and Tony and ATEK and all these people, they want to bodily *drag* me out of my foxhole, but I like it here. I don't want to be in the newspaper. I don't want to be a celebrity. I don't want to be "Strap the English Teacher in Korea." I just want to be the next whit guy on the street.
Don't you see, that's been the point all along? Hiding in my foxhole? Damn right! It's great in here. I've got satellite TV here in English, a huge pipe to the internet, an easy job, plenty of cheap booze, and a nice place to stay before I go back to "The Real World" and all its trappings.
I live in the country.
It's quiet here in my foxhole.
Roboseyo, you and Tony might think I *want* to come out of my foxhole, but I guarantee you, there is nothing I want to do less. Things are great here. I just want to keep them that way."
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=146956&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1110
Mike:
the Korea Times misquoted Tony when they said they claimed to represent 20 000 English teachers. Tony was very clear that they had no members to represent at the time of that interview, and the reporter basically said, "Come on, guys. Give me something" and then made it up.
I stand by my challenge: if you don't like where ATEK is going, join it and be a part of its new goals. Once its members organize into regional representatives and decision making bodies, the current ATEK council will resign and give way for new leadership. Heck, you could be president of ATEK if you wanted to be, to make sure that they handle criticism differently from now on.
Dave's has been nothing more than a haven for ignorant rabble and hysterical noobies for as long as I can remember...it's just a PG version of English Spectrum. Even the board I currently frequent, would probably not be the most desirable light to cast the expat community in.
It's funny how it seems the strongest and loudest opponents to a more unified expat community are the expat themselves. No wonder it's so easy for people to rip us off and say terrible things about us.
That is the official ATEK response Rob, and one I accepted... until http://ateknews.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/non-citizen-english-teachers-find-voice/
First, Mike: I do appreciate that you're coming here to carry the discussion on the things I'm talking about. I appreciate the different voice.
There's more than one Korean Teacher's union, with differing agendas; I don't see that it couldn't be the same for English teachers.
Atek's own behavior and (let's be honest) blunders aside, the fact is, at this point, I don't see anybody else standing up and trying to fill the need for English teachers who find themselves up a creek or thrown under the bus in Korea, and whether it's ATEK or another group, I look forward to a time when there's a group advocating for English teachers, and making help available.
Whether ATEK's story turns out to be a cautionary tale that helps the next association have a more successful start, or whether they can recover from a few opening missteps, I respect that they're trying to help, and look forward to the point when they're organized, and can pass the reins to representatives elected by their members.
Rob,
This is disheartening to hear. But it reflects how most of our expat sentiments are discussed and dealt with here in Korea. And that is on Dave's ESL.
BEfore I came to Korea I thought that as an expat we would all find ourselves as one group and keep ourselves safe. But it really didn't turn out that way. Sure I am friends with you and you help me out.
But I am talking about the expat collective.
In America, I believe, expat Koreans and Asian nationals get together within their national group to form a community. You know how there is Chinatown, Korea town..etc. Well I think it is not just because they want to sell cheap trinkets on the roadside. It is because they come together to form a community. The help each other with housing and legal issues.
I thought as an expat coming to Korea I would find a similiar "community" feeling. But unfortunately it is not true. Instead I think most expats get to know certain people within their school and group and consider that as enough. They get screwed in one way or another and immedietly brand their life in Korea as horrible. This affects their outlook on life and gets spilled over to small talk, which gets passed around and before you know it groups like ATEK are branded as the enemy. When in fact they are trying to be our superhero.
What also happens here is that people build up their lives here as if they are their own superhero. They survived crap and got out of on their own without anyone else's help. Now some group is coming along and it promises to be their umbrella.
Fortunately for ATEK there are still a number of expats that could benefit from their program. In fact we all could.
We just need to realize and rethink our positions here in Korea.
Whether you are married to a Korean, not a teacher or a teacher we all come from the same background. And that is that we are expats. We weren't born in this country. And so society works differently here. The outlook of this is that some of us have been mixing in well and other haven't.
If we don't group together as a whole and continue to keep ourselves distanced from one another than the problems that occur to us today are going to live on.
This isn't just about getting to know each other and sharing a few beers.
This is about understanding our role here in Korea and helping Koreans understand us, our background and our role.
We need to represent ourselves. And Dave's ESL is not going to do that for us.
Maybe even ATEK can't do everything for us. But if we ATEK's enemy than that means we have the power to make ATEK work for us. I know that sounds strange. But we have the ability to take this group and suggest what we really need and don't need.
If you look at the dynamic of ATEK it is a group that has the possibility to break the barrier between being an "alien" to being a person in this country with better rights.
So instead of us throwing shit at ATEK let's throw something more useful.
Finally I want to add that this hiatus reminds me of my disappointment in the expat community here.
I believe that we all have higher educations, learned critical thinking and how to judge life. Instead all I see are a bunch of whiners without a light at the end of the tunnel.
Let's get it together people. You are here and we are all here. It's time to get our act together!
Rob we need to stand up for ourselves. We can use ATEK as a way to do it.
But before people get their ass' off of Dave's Esl and come together to solve our problems and become more representative we are still going to face these hurdles.
In other words... it isn't entirely up to ATEK to become more organized but ourselves.
I tend to agree with some of Mike's points - someone opposed to a system should not be forced / asked / expected to join it. To a certain extent it is possible to change things from the outside, while in their infancy, before they get too long. While it's difficult to ignore ATEK's missteps, I'm sure few organizations have escaped making mistakes at one point or another. I trust they were made unintentionally, without malicious intent, and assist the group in what I hope to be a democratic and open community.
I do see some point of ignoring a disruptive, mostly anonymous, and at times ignorant discussion in an online forum known for the same three qualities. That it isn't the best forum for the discussion doesn't matter - ESLcafe's reputation precedes itself in almost all circles but those newest to Korea. If someone is interested in having a more sane discussion, can't they start up their own discussion thread and use the power of their points to determine popularity?
That ATEK is taking longer to fully form is a slight annoyance - and it's also a reminder that things aren't done overnight or built in a day. From everything I've seen there's been an opportunity to join the meetings, have your say via e-mail discussions with any of the current leadership, even assist in drafting the by-laws. How many associations have you been involved in that offer that level of transparency?
ATEK might do well to drop the 'we represent all foreign teachers mindset' in favor of a 'we represent our members' mindset. I'm also reminded of that old story about the grasshopper and the ants - and what a conscious non-member would do if they found themselves in need of any ATEK services.
To each their own - but is there truly a need to attack something just because you don't like it? We stand stronger as a group when united - or at least avoiding the infighting.
My first reaction when I heard an organization was forming to represent the interests of foreign teachers was relief. After just one year in Korea I had met or heard about countless horror stories and wondered what I could do if contract or human rights were violated.
I'm a little bit late to the "conversation" so forgive me if the names (or no names) of all the players are fuzzy.
Leaving debate about the effectiveness of this or that site as a forum aside, I think it's shameful that a few disgruntled teachers have resorted to character assassination as a way to win an argument. There should be a venue for every kind of speech, but Rob's point about anonymity is well taken.
In a serious discussion of policy, strategies, and goals, there should be a minimum buy-in of decency.
ATEK may be experiencing some growing pains from missteps, and the nay-sayers may have some constructive criticism hidden deep in their gaping maw of negativity, but everyone is forgetting that the Korean government and people who are considering coming to Korea have access to this forum.
We need to show some candor and elevate the debate to one worthy of the potential impact of an association like ATEK.
The Internet is at once inter-personal and mass communication. At least that's what they told us in graduate school. When someone makes a comment online they represent 25,000 teachers! I'm not talking about ATEK's unfortunate run in with distinctly NON-western reporting standards.
Ironically, the very bloggers who are concerned about being misrepresented by ATEK are misrepresenting the values and culture of the foreign teachers who don't want to be thought of as foul,unprofessional,unappreciative, vain, or unruly.
Why should any official come to the table when they see such low-brow commentary. I hope if they are reading they know that most teachers don't know the first thing about Tony, Bloggers, or ATEK.
Thank God.
That means the newly established provincial ATEK chapters can reach out to blissfully ignorant new teachers and make a difference in the future when all of us have moved on, whenever that is.
For those who are Korea "lifers"... realize that someone fresh off the boat has a huge disadvantage compared to you. You have learned the culture and perhaps the language. You can defend yourself.
The rest of us need an organization like ATEK to succeed, so we're willing to like it struggle through adolescence to become a mature source for information and solutions.
Ha ha! I remember the MB = pedophile graffiti!
Good times.
I think someone needs to form a counter-ATEK. Light a fire under them, keep them honest, compete in the marketplace of ideas, and band together for the really important stuff.
I'll start one next week.
Rob: There's more than one Korean Teacher's union, with differing agendas; I don't see that it couldn't be the same for English teachers.That could well happen, and I for one would welcome it. They could then keep each other in line, and I can go back to my quiet life and get back to spending quality time with my daughter. I don't like having to do this; I have never been involved in any kind of anti-ANYTHING activity before in my life, and I hope I never feel the need to again. But I will, if it comes down to it.
Just a thought... how many of the Korean Teacher's unions actually claim to be the voice for all teachers? I would guess NONE as there are laws to ensure that their membership numbers are published.
ATEK skirt the law by not registering as a legal entity, yet still want to get involved in fundraising activities that would be illegal in Korea (Source: http://atek.or.kr/employer_rater.html - expect that to vanish soon!)
Chris: I do see some point of ignoring a disruptive, mostly anonymous, and at times ignorant discussion in an online forum known for the same three qualities. That it isn't the best forum for the discussion doesn't matter - ESLcafe's reputation precedes itself in almost all circles but those newest to Korea. If someone is interested in having a more sane discussion, can't they start up their own discussion thread and use the power of their points to determine popularity?ALL of the large blogs in Korea are pro-ATEK, or silent. Hellmann did a great job of getting the bloggers on-side, and it is very difficult to get a real discussion going. Dave's was the only place ATEK posted where people could have open discussion without heavy moderation. That is a good and bad thing, but I prefer Dave's over a discussion where a question such as "Will you at least tell me why you refuse to answer that" gets moderated and a not-so-nice "private and confidential" email is sent instead of the answer.
Kushibo: I think someone needs to form a counter-ATEK. Light a fire under them, keep them honest, compete in the marketplace of ideas, and band together for the really important stuff. One good thing did come of this... I made contact with a number of like-minded people and there will likely be some organised opposition to ATEK in future. ATEK has been decapitated, but there is still some work to be done. If ATEK come out fighting, good on them, but they are mortally wounded right now and there is every chance they will be finished off.
If ATEK retreat to lick their wounds; use this as an opportunity to rethink their strategy; emerge as a cleaner, more transparent, and less confrontational organisation; they could still win people over.
It will be an interesting few weeks, that's for sure.
The bottom line is that he stole someone else's property. He is a thief. So what if it was intellectually property and not an IPOD? He didn't know it was wrong? B.S. He was too lazy to do the work so he googled it and ripped it off. He probably didn't change a word. I think he should be fired.
NB? The plagiarism issue is being discussed at The Hub Of Sparkle, not here, and Tony's announced his intention to resign on Dave's... pay attention.
Greg: For those who are Korea "lifers"... realize that someone fresh off the boat has a huge disadvantage compared to you. You have learned the culture and perhaps the language. You can defend yourself.You are missing something important Greg. I AM defending myself. ATEK showed that they did not care about the plight of long-termers in Korea from the out.
The first disrespectful comment on the Dave's thread came from an anonymous poster (buymybook) who claims he was involved in some way in the founding of ATEK. His involvement was never once disputed by Tony. He made a comment along the lines of 'F visa holders married for an easier life with immigration, why should they get off lightly?' (the thread has vanished for now so I can't find the exact quote). That was offensive to a LOT of people.
It was made clear from that point on that ATEK and F-Visa holders were going to be at odds with one another. As much as teachers in Korea need some representation, I will fight with everything I have to ensure that NOBODY threatens me or my family.
It's simple: You hurt them, I hurt you. You cause them pain, I cause you pain. You cause them to suffer, I cause you to suffer. If I get so much as a suspicion that you intend them harm, I will do everything I can to make sure it never happens.
One poster on Dave's likened it to Michael Corleone in Godfather II, when talking about the Cuban Rebels v Soldiers. The soldiers (ATEK) will never win. They are fighting for money. The Rebels (F-Visa holders) are fighting for their lives.
ATEK never reckoned on such rabid opposition. That tells me they never really considered what they were doing. Sure, they had their weapons (media, bloggers, podcasts) but we have ours. When our voice is ignored and excluded, you bet your life people will resort to guerilla tactics when they are left with no other option.
E-2 visa holders can go home. They can choose to oppose things by not coming here! I do not have the option to go home. I promised my wife, and her family, that I would never force her to leave Korea. In a worst case scenario (which I am sick and tired of typing) ATEK may have forced me to break that promise.
I posted in the now gone Daves thread about ATEK. I used to be a frequent Daves poster and a moderator on that site. I went by the name Homer back then and left Daves PRECISELY because of the way most serious threads ended up in the mud pit.
A fair point however has been made about the near symbiosis between ATEK and the blogosphere. That harmony killed off any sort of real debate about ATEK and funnelled it to Daves where it devolved into a sick attack on the person of Tony Hellmann.
I will now address the whole ATEK saga from my perspective. I was a Teacher in Korea from 1997 to 2008. I left teaching over a year ago to work in another field but still related to Korea. I am married to a Korean woman (since 1998) and we have two wonderful kids. I used to be a F-visa holder and started out as an E-2 visa holder. I have contacts all over the peninsula (both westerners and Koreans). I also followed ATEK from the initial debate on wether it should exist or not (over a year ago) until now. Note that the original debate, or a large part of it, occured on Daves....
Now, I deplore and strongly dislike the way things went in the ATEK thread. The personal witch hunt that happened there was disgusting. No one deserves to have their lives exposed like that. There were many points to be debated on a professional basis when it came to ATEK. There was no need to go personal on Mr Hellmann.
ATEK is an organization that can still do some good in my opinion. However it suffers from some critical initial mistakes and from a tendency to take shortcuts in order to act more quickly. ATEk also mixed up the PERSONAL beliefs and values of its founders with the PROFESSIONAL goals it should have. This is never a good thing and a clear result of acting by putting the cart before the ox.
By this I mean ATEK acted without mandate from a solid membership base. That was a bad mistake and it hurt them right out of the gate. They jumped into the Equal Checks Campaign before even being officially launched and then danced on the fence about their involvement. They said they were not running the campaign nor engaging in activism or advocacy on the one hand. On the other hand they sent mass-emails to teachers encouraging them to complain to the Human Rights commission, offering them a website where they could get pre-filled complaint forms and tallied the number of complaints. That, all before having even a SINGLE member outside of the 3 founders. This was unethical and clearly a publicity move to attract members. It inevitably created backlash when none would have occured if ATEK had chosen to take things slower and build membership.
Many Daves users voiced such concerns politely and in a professional fashion. These were people with many years of experience in Korea, sometimes 10, 15 or even 20 years. They were largely ignored.
Then came the guidebook with the unfortunate title quicky followed by the plagiarism issue. That was a lot of bad press for such a small and young association.
The whole Human Rights issue was flawed at the core because of the way it was handled. It sounded far more like a media blitz than a true move by ATEK to help Teachers.
ATEK, during initial discussions was identified as an entity that could HELP teachers. It morphed into an advocacy group along the way and that too was a bad decision because you cannot advocate anything with credibility unless you have a mandate to do so!
Mr Hellmann suffered neddlessly because some people felt they needed to take shots at him personally. The fault here is not only on the trolls but also shared by Mr Hellmann himself in some part. The issue is not black and white. It is far murkier than this.
ATEK CAN do some good if it refocuses and decides to limit itself to offering assistance to Teachers until it has a sufficiently high number of members to have a mandate from such members to act. Before that happens, ATEK should remain well clear of the political arena.
Can this be done? I hope so because as someone who ran a support group for new teachers in Busan for many years, I see a national assistance group to be a boon to teachers.
To be honest, Mr Hellmann should have quit long ago to avoid this storm and the bad publicity that ATEK is now getting. He chose to stay on and duke it out, most likely out of the conviction he was right and through good intentions. Sometimes however, good intentions need the steady hand of experience and the check and balance of a polled membership to stay on a safe course.
I will now respond to two of the users here...
Mike...I was in a similar boat as yours just a year ago. I was a F-visa teacher with a Korean wife and child living in Korea. I have roots there and was a resident. I can understand your reaction to ATEKs actions.
Joy...I applaud your comment on people banding together as expats but to me that argument is flawed at its core. It is a noble aim but I think it fails to recognize the nature of the teaching population in Korea (or in any other country that hires foreign teachers). An important distinction NEEDS to be made between TEMPORARY-SHORT TERM WORKERS and LONG-TERM RESIDENTS. Those are two very different groups. Also, to be an expat is not to be from a common background. This is not an immigrant community but rather a moving and changing group made up for the most part of short term new college graduates that are passing ships in Korea (nothing wrong with this, it is the way it is).
Where is the common denominator then?
A point was made in a blog (perhaps this one) that I think has much value: some people stand up for themselves and others do not but want others to stand up for them and then get angry when said people do not stand up for them. That explains much of the problem here.
Finally, your comparison with asian people living in our western countries is interesting but I do not know if you considered the fact that most asian cultures are group oriented and hence when they move abroad they seek this group or community aspect. this in turn makes it somewhat expected that they should band together. Whereas most westerners come from individuality centered cultures and hence have less drive to regroup or seek the group. The major flaw I see in the argument however is that most expat teachers in Korea are not immigrants in any sense of the word.
Anyway, I am curious to see hat ATEK will become in the future and hope they can help teachers through a more limited and I will say realistic mandate.
nb... If you knew how much work goes into starting a national organization you wouldn't say anyone in ATEK is lazy, whether you embrace what they are doing or not.
Over-looking a missing citation under a time crunch isn't stealing -- it's sloppy editing at worst.
As for 'decapitation' I don't know where you get your information. Furthermore you can't cut the head off a grassroots organization. You have to pull up the roots.
Instead of creating an anti-ATEK group why not start a pro-English teacher group? That's what they did...
Greg, you make a valid point about time constraints in publishing but an admission of plagiarism was made by Mr Hellmann (then that admission was diluted and even partially excused away).
Plagiarism occured and frankly it cannot be ignored nor can it be tolerated in any association whose first action is a Human Rights action for equality and fairness. On a pure image basis, a resignation should have occured right on the spot in order to show that ATEK was bigger than any of its members.
I would not call anyone at ATEK lazy, I agree with you there. But, I would say some people there made poor choices and took shortcuts to get media clippings.
My main issue has been the same from the get go...how could ATEK act so publicly and on something that could have such concrete ramifications WITHOUT any sort of MANDATE from a membership base?
To the Chris who just posted "I posted in the now gone Daves thread about ATEK...": I'd like it if you fired me a message through one of the channels on my blog sidebar.
-Rob
Actually... Mike Y, that goes for you, too.
Mike,
As far as I know no laws have changed since ATEK's founding that have had any affect on the survival of your visa status, earning potential or your family's well-being. Please correct me if I'm wrong because want to be fully informed and that is often difficult. (without an organization to filter the noise)
I believe the campaign you are referring to may have had some problems with the way it was communicated, but I know that there was never any intention of making life more difficult for permanent residents.
I will likely be married to a Korean soon, and I plan to remain a member of ATEK because I see the potential.
I know that the organization has learned from its early steps and has endeavored to include everyone.
As far as telling E-2 visa holders to go home... we have just as much of a right to work and live here and we deserve to be treated fairly.
I'm sorry that some (anonymous) blogger got you upset. But, you gotta admit the irony of that is just too funny since the childish retaliation towards someone who didn't even make the comment was 100x worse.
An organization is not responsible for what is said on its behalf if they didn't make the comment. How do we know it wasn't someone who was trying to pose as an ATEK founder?
Would that be so inconceivable given the nastiness of the Dave's thread? The kind of anonymous unaccountable people who decapitate organizations and perform character assassination seem capable of such a ploy.
PS. being forced to leave Korea? Isn't that being a bit dramatic? Unless you're hiding something you're worried about should regulations change....
I wish you would join the organization and represent F-series visa holders. Now that would be change you can believe in!
Chris,
I appreciate your reasoning. I think asking someone who has invested countless hours and Won over a dropped citation is overkill.
However, I agree the response could have been handled differently. Cut them a break though. They are not a PR firm, they are a teacher-run teacher association....
If Tony were to step down could ATEK count on your support?
Do not underestimate the role of the Korea press in finding a story where there is none. I'm was a trained journalism instructor so I know how often my students made poor inferences and made things seem grander than they were to get a byline.
I wish we could get past this and start to hear from elected representative about issues that really matter.
And, The Guide to Korea is pretty useful you gotta admit.
Greg,
You are correct, no laws have changed, but ATEK did try and change them through their equal rights campaign. (I really wanted to avoid typing this all over again, but here goes). There were 2 possible outcomes: Success and failure.
Let's rule out failure, as ATEK never wanted that.
So.. there are 2 types of success. ATEK could claim victory with either of these, and the Korean Government would no longer be discriminating against E-2 Visa holders...
1. Requirements for E-2 visas are dropped. This is what ATEK wanted, but the Korean public would be in uproar over this. It will NOT happen. In the recent swine flu outbreak, Korea suspended imports of pork from the US. They did this whilst acknowledging that it was 100% safe! Gotta love that logic!
2. Requirements for those teaching on F-2 visas are brought in line with E-2 visa holders... let's think about this.
I have NOTHING to hide. I came here as a PS teacher and I submitted health and criminal checks. The checks were done in my home country, and I have also undergone PS health checks after I arrived.
Getting another criminal check from my home country would be a pain in the arse, but nothing I couldn't handle.
So... why the complaints from me?
Some idiot in immigration realised that Canadians have Vulnerable Sector Screening that gives more detailed checks than the standard criminal check, and they want all Canadians to get it. The VSS is for in-country employers only. Some people are able to get it, whilst others can not. Immigration are giving Canadians some leeway here for the moment, but they DO want the VSS screening and have gone so far as to call the Canadian Government 'unhelpful' in refusing to extend the screening to Korea.
The UK (my home) also has VSS screening. Korea does not seem to have picked up on this YET. The UK VSS can not be applied for in person. I could NEVER request a copy of the report. It is for pre-registered employers working in industries servicing the most vulnerable in society (babysitter services, schools, supply teacher agencies, hospitals, etc., etc.). The UK data protection laws make it a criminal offence to disclose this information to anybody outside of the UK.
If Korea adopts the 'equal checks' policy, that would not cause me too many problems. It would be a nuisance, but I could handle. If Korea then insists on my requiring a VSS search at some point in the future, I am screwed.
If you are planning to wed soon, you will know what an ordeal it is to meet the parents. My wife's mother died when she was young, and her dad had some reservations about her marrying a foreigner. One of the things he made me promise was that I would never force my wife to leave Korea. I made my promise, and since that day he has given me friendship and support.
To be put in a position where that trust could be betrayed through the selfish actions of 3 individuals is unforgivable.
There is a lot of maybe in my line of thinking, but that threat is there and it is real. You could argue that I should consider getting out of teaching, but why should I? I came here to teach. I am furthering my education because I love being a teacher. I work hard at it and I am damn good at it. Why should I be forced to give up my job, or my home, to satisfy the wants of the short-term resident here?
You may think I am being selfish in looking out for myself and my family and damning the E-2 people, and I would agree with you 100% on that. There's the thing... I don't care about them. Most of them will be gone in a year or 2. They won't earn the forgiveness of my wife's father. They won't feed and clothe my child. For the most part, they are here to pay their debts and go home.
I am all for improving the lot of teachers here, but given a choice between that scenario and the status quo, but not at the expense of everything I hold dear.
Greg,
I know it is asking much of ATEK to act as I outlined but to me that is the only way they can be seen as credible and avoid the conflicts that are now weakening it.
They are not a PR firm but they acted very much like a PR firm. In essence they cannot have their cake and eat it to...or some other vaguely adequate analogy.
You asked me a direct question so I will have the courtesy to give you a direct answer.
I no long teach however but can tell you what I would if I was still a full-time teacher in Korea.
Would I join ATEK if Mr Hellman were to step down?
As an intro to the answer: it was never about Mr Hellmann himself for me, but rather about ATEK actions and a perceived lack of ethics and professionalism.
So, the way ATEK is run currently and based on its actions so far, I would NOT join ATEK were I still teaching because I would not feel I could have confidence in the leadership. I know the quick response to this will be: join and you can influence the association.
In theory that is certainly true but since ATEK chose to act without mandate as its initial action how could I trust it not do to so again?
I would have joined ATEK happily had it chosen to start off by just positionning itself as a ressource for teachers while not doing advocacy or activism.
I hope this answers your question Greg.
As for the Guide, I said many times it could be a great help to teachers and maintain this. However, the title (I know some people see it as no big deal) is an issue for me. Why? Well briefly because it makes fun of Korea and to me sets the wrong tone for an association that wants to be serious in its efforts to help teachers. It also fuels an attidude that amusingly enough is prevalent on Daves: bashing Korea. I cannot accept such wording in a serious guide.
Again, I hope this answers your question.
Glad to have a fair, open and frank debate on this.
hey everybody, I'm going to bed, but I want to say thanks for carrying this conversation on in a really civil and respectful way. I appreciate it a lot.
-rob
Daves is a crappy place to go for information on anything. I tried to go on and really provide a good example of positive discourse and was totally beaten out of there. It's probably the craziest place I have ever seen.
That being said...I find it terrible that a person whose goal it is to improve the lives of others (even if you don't like the method) is being harrassed. That is terrible. I don't know too much about ATEK but it seems committed to sorting through some of the problems we face as we try to live in Korea. Some can be fixed, others can't. It sounds like it got a bit of a rocky start but that is to be expected when someone starts something that has never been done before. There are many "failures" before it is right. I think people forget the time, work, money, effort, and care that people have put into ATEK. I think it is a worthwhile cause that is evolving all the time and the more people get involved and lend a voice, the more it will become the right kind of organization for the people it is meant to represent.
I'm not an English teacher, so I didn't follow this discussion until ATEK formally formed and started their human rights abuse campaign (my thoughts can be found here).
I'm not going to ask for a rehash of the personal attacks on Tony Hellermann (having been the target of four serious episodes of personal attacks that included threats of physical violence and efforts to get me fired, I sympathize, particularly when false accusations and/or fake postings are involved), but I would like to know — briefly — what the issue is with (a) the title of the guide, and (b) the specific problem that "established" F visa holders have with what ATEK was trying to do. I get Mike's point about the VSS, but is that what it boils down to?
In general, Korean nationals in teaching are already checked and accounted for, though often through indirect means (that are often spotty, owing to purged records for punishments under a certain level), and the foreign teaching community should get used to the idea that that is probably coming. The Korean public perception of teachers not held accountable is growing, and there is strong support for (a) more thorough checks on foreign teachers coming to Korea, particularly new ones, and (b) Korean "irregular" teachers who haven't successfully gone through the difficult hoops involved with being a "regular" teacher.
So basically Mike, according to the last couple paragraphs you wrote, you will never support a teachers' association in Korea? E2 teachers will never get any support or protection from such a group because you're more worried about yourself and you don't care about anyone else?
(I have a feeling all the F2-holding anti-ATEKers feel the same...the "I want to stay in my own foxhole" comments make that quite obvious)
Mike wrote:
1. Requirements for E-2 visas are dropped. This is what ATEK wanted, but the Korean public would be in uproar over this. It will NOT happen. In the recent swine flu outbreak, Korea suspended imports of pork from the US. They did this whilst acknowledging that it was 100% safe! Gotta love that logic!
South Korea did not suspend or ban pork products. It said (see here and here) that it "would increase the number of its influenza virus checks on pork products from Mexico and the U.S." You may be thinking of Russia China, which reportedly did ban pork from the US and Mexico.
Arguing a barely relevant point with false information. Gotta love that logic!
ROK Hound,
Not at all. If there was an association dedicated to ensuring that the employment laws were being followed, and worked to improve the lot of E-2 visas WITHOUT interfering in my life, I would support them.
ATEK could have chosen to make the fight one about enforcing current laws (payment, severance, illegal firings, vacation), worked to improve some of the visa conditions (visa portability), or tried to make life easier in Korea (banking regulations) WITHOUT asking for F-2 visa holders rights to be brought down to the level of E-2 holders.
I would even support easy transition to F-like status for long term E-2 residents so they could have all the benefits of the F-visa without the wife.
I can never support an organisation that wants to hinder my ability to support my family, but do sympathise with the plight of E-2 visa holders. I was an E-2 visa holder. Most of my friends are E-2 visa holders. I would like to see the long-term E-2 teachers get recognition for their commitment to Korea.
It is telling that ATEK's campaign for equality did not focus on education. They did not support allowing people into Korea without degrees (Korean teachers can work in hagwons without degrees), as that would undoubtedly bring salaries down. They even dodged the questions regarding the membership of Filipino and Indian teachers. Their campaign was NEVER about equality in the sense of improving the rights of E-visa holders. Their equality was all about dragging F-Visa status back 5-10 years.
I think it should be noted that ATEK is in the process of holding elections. That means that very soon the organization will be made of representatives selected by the community.
I'm told that it won't be long before the founding members are themselves up for election should they choose to remain in their current capacities. That means ATEK will have the legitimacy and processes it needs to succeed.
Any future campaigns would be more deliberate, thought-out, and representative of the membership.
To that end, I think even its fiercest critics will find its goals less contentious. I doubt F-series visa holders will be ignored.
Tracey is right - there are always some bumps in the road at the start.
Kushibo, I could have chose any one of a number of issues where the Korean government have over-reacted, I just happen to have chose that one. You are correct, they chose to increase tests. Then, 2 days later, they banned imports.
Not got time to look much further as I need to go to work, but it was reported in the news here, and on TV (my wife was the first to tell me about it after seeing it on the news).
Can I poke fun at you now:
Arguing about the news by quoting the old? Gotta love that logic! In other breaking news...
I for one don’t want to ignore the E2s. I spent 4 years on an E2 and sympathize with the plight of anyone who has to work under those severely restrictive terms. But surely any organization that wants to speak for English teachers here has to recognize the diversity of the group engaged in this vocation.
The problems in that respect began with ATEK’s “Equal Checks” campaign and their support of Prof. Wagner’s report which, it must be remembered, does not allege that discrimination is taking place as between foreigners and Korean citizens, but rather as between E2s and F series visa holders. Of course, Prof. Wagner, not being an English teacher, probably didn’t care much about the rift this would create between E2s and the F series folks. Why should he, it’s not his concern. He’s a law professor.
ATEK, on the other hand, should have been able to foresee this and failed to. The result was that a lot of F series people, including myself felt that ATEK was showing a wanton disregard for our position here in this country as residents, in favor of E2s who mostly come and go within a few years. I agree that ATEK did eventually come around to acknowledging that oversight. Unfortunately, by the time they realized their mistake; the train had already left the station and was quite a ways down the line. The NHRCK had commenced their investigation and there was no way of stopping it.
I think anyone whose has experience working in a particular field for many years or anyone who has been a member of a union knows that when it comes to a person’s livelihood, folks can be very protective and if you threaten a person’s ability to earn a living, as the “Equal Check” campaign did, things are bound to get nasty. A lot of the E2 teachers including, I would suggest, the ATEK founders, lacked the life experience necessary to fully appreciate that fact.
Nonetheless, I think folks crossed the line over at Dave’s. There was no need for those kinds of personal attacks and they have now effectively made a martyr out of Tony Hellmann. That’s a shame because I don’t think he deserves to be seen in that light.
One of the central issues here is what ATEK is or should be. I think Mike makes a VERY valid point here and says something that ATEK and the pro-ATEK crowd should pay attention to.
He basically says ATEK should focus on working with the Korean Government so that it actually applies its current laws evenly and with consistency. That is something that would divide no one.
Personally I think ATEK should stay out of advocacy and activism and focus on assistance to teachers through networking, professional development and other such services.
Going into advocacy and publicy campaigns is a bit like dancing on the fence since ATEK is not really allowed to engage in political activities. ATEK is also not a Union and hence cannot mediate or actually negociate with an employer on behalf of a Teacher. Remember also that all these activities take money. so where is this operating budget going to come from and more to the point who will manage this budget?
All these are full-time jobs so who will take them and how will these people be paid? What will tgheir legal status be in Korea and on what visas would they have to be on? (I will let you guess with a hint that the visa series has a letter that is located between E and G in the alphabet).
These are all unavoidable issues.
On the flip side, should ATEK stick to being an association that offers help and counsel, produces a guide, offers workshops and the like, then it can be run with a bunch of part-timers who also Teach. The budget for such an association would be smaller and it would work best with the largely transient teaching population in Korea.
Other points being made here that are heavy with meaning are those directed at what the Korean government will do with regards to Teachers (Korean and Foreign alike). Always remember that the Korean government answers to Korean citizens, not to us foreigners. They will apply measures that are demanded by its citizens and those may very well include more restrictions on foreign teachers including more qualifications and checks. That has been brewing for a while.
I will now address some of the points made by Karl.
I wonder why you think ATEK (or another such group) could change how Foreigners are perceived here? The media is what it is: it prints or broadcasts what sells and what shocks. Foreigners acting badly sells...in most places around the world. Korean nationals being run over by a US military convoy..sells because its damn shocking. ATEK cannot change that not can it change what the average Korean thinks when looking at westerners. Then another issue crops up...how do you know what the average Korean thinks of you? I mean do you go by what the media says? I would submit to you that the average Korea does not give a rodents hairy behind about you nor gives you a second thought. Most Koreans are not in contact with foreigners anyway. This is not a multi-cultural society and this should be kept in mind when looking at things.
Tracy,
ATEK is not the first attempt at representing teachers in Korea. It is however one of the attempts that went the furthest. The fact that the founders "worked hard" is irrelevant to the current concerns (I applaud you for having such kind feelings however). Professionally speaking it is about results and behaviour not about how hard people worked. Starting this association in a foreign land was by definition hard...so lets drop the hard working line.
In conclusion, ATEK can do a lot of good. It can be a great RESOURCE for Teachers without trying to be all things at once.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/03/137_40819.html
Korea has spoken (and agrees with the ANTI-ATEK crowd).
Immigration rules are in place to monitor who comes into the country. Just because you are required to get a health and criminal check for a visa, it does not mean you need one for teaching.
If the employer (PS, Uni, Hagwon, Whatever) asks you to get a criminal check, saying "I have an F-Visa" is not a free pass. You should provide one. (For the record: This F-Visa holder provided a criminal check for his hagwon job!)
By the same standard, E-2 visa holders do NOT need to provide any checks for a hagwon job unless their employer requests it. They DO have to provide them in order to satisfy immigration requirements, but this has nothing to do with your equality in the workplace.
Thankfully, the Korean Government have shown some sense here, and ATEK have divided the community (and made a lot of enemies) over nothing.
Hopefully, they will drop this now. If not, they are acting outside of the initial goal to protect children and make working conditions equal for all teachers.
fred - you said - "Prof. Wagner’s report which, it must be remembered, does not allege that discrimination is taking place as between foreigners and Korean citizens, but rather as between E2s and F series visa holders"
In his Korea Times articles Wagner said:
"The idea that foreigners pose some kind of greater threat to children is misplaced, both from the perspective of nationalistic bias, as well as from the evidence. Similarly, it is wrong to think that foreigners will not care so much about students in their care because their ``blood'' is different. We must recognize that all of us in Korea care deeply about protecting the children living in this country.
When, in January 2008, a Korean teacher stripped a five-year-old female student naked and locked her outside of her school in the middle of winter; it was a foreign English teacher that came to the child's aid. Is it right to point to such foreign English teachers and claim, as the proposed Bill to amend the Immigration Control Act does, that "they pose a threat to our society's public order and our people's health? . . .
The basic message of my report to the NHRCK is a simple one: equal standards for teachers means greater protection for children in Korea. A standard of protection that applies equally to all teachers regardless of citizenship or immigration status will raise, not lower, the standard of protection of the human rights of children in the Republic of Korea.
If the government is truly interested in ``protecting children and young students`` as the policy memo states, why exclude Korean teachers from precautionary measures designed to protect these children?
Is it reasonable that many Korean teachers (particularly those teaching in private institutes) are not required to undergo criminal background checks? Is it reasonable for Korean teachers to be granted impunity for physically and sexually abusing their students, often even continuing in their positions as educators of children?
Those who abuse students must receive appropriate punishment, and those convicted of abuse must be barred from working with children again."
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2009/05/181_39380.html
Mike - you said - "Korea has spoken (and agrees with the ANTI-ATEK crowd)."
No, that wasn't Korea that was speaking, it was a misinformed kimmi official, and his arguments got answered here:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2009/05/181_41565.html
"Just because you are required to get a health and criminal check for a visa, it does not mean you need one for teaching."
Unfortunately for the E2s, getting a visa is directly related to teaching. The only job an E2-holder can have is teaching.
In response to JSK, that is what Wagner tells the Korea Times in an interview. He has refused to release his report to anyone other than the NHRCK, ATEK or the press. Apparently it's top secret if you're just a lowly English teacher.
The Joong Ang Daily got a copy and they reported as follows
"A law professor filed a report with the National Human Rights Commission yesterday asserting that health and criminal checks required of native English language teachers entering Korea are discriminatory.
Under Korea’s current E-2 visa policy, native English-speaking teachers are required to have the checks, while ethnic Korean non-citizen teachers holding F-4 visas and non-citizen teachers married to Koreans who have F-2 visas are not.
Professor Benjamin Wagner said the discrepancy violates the rights of native-English speakers to equal and fair treatment."
Wagner himself subsequently confirmed that he was only alleging discrimination as between E and F series visas in an email to Tony which Tony posted over at Dave's.
The Equal Checks for All campaign was, in reality just an "Equal Checks for all Foreigners" campaign. Koreans got a pass.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/02/04/atek-interview-with-prof-benjamin-wagner/ didn't he cover the main points of his report in this interview?
Yes Roboseyo he talks about his report in his interview and he discusses it in the press extensively but when you ask for a copy (and I did) he refuses. I also requested a copy from the NHRCK under Korea's Freedom of Information law back in February and was refused. ATEK has a copy and also refuses to release it. What's the big secret?
There seems to be a big difference between what he says in the press ( K teachers don't have to do drug testing and HIV screens, Foreign teachers do, so that's discrimination) and what his report before the NHRCK seems to say ( F series teachers don't have to do drug testing and HIV screens, E2s do, so that's discrimination). I think the distinction is significant. The outcome of the NHRCK proceeding won't eliminate discrimination against foreigners, it will just expand the class of foreigners being discriminated against and that's just silly. I'd happily support the former position. Sadly that's not what Wagner is arguing in his report before the NHRCK and ATEK publicly supports that position.
Its reasonable that there are policy differences between E/ F visa holders because E/ F visa holders have different interests and stakes in society.
Could not these differences be put to use - or - could these differences be best served with a structure analogous to a bicameral legislature or a 2/ multi-party system within an ATEK-like organization?
Surely there are guiding principles to which we can all subscribe ..?
Thanks for the additional information, Fred.
"Its reasonable that there are policy differences between E/ F visa holders because E/ F visa holders have different interests and stakes in society."
That would not be true if they have the same job, and it is because of the job that the checks are required.
Obviously, an E2 teaching and an F2 working for Samsung are in different circumstances, and should not be compared? But why should an F2 teacher or Korean hagwon teacher not be scrutinized just as closely as E2 teachers or Korean PS teachers? Is the job different for them?
Yes Katherine it is possible, and F series folks with their long term experience in the country could do a lot to help E2 teachers out. Go over to Dave’s and look at the time and effort one of them is currently putting into helping long term E2s apply for F5 visas. That’s just one example.
ATEK’s founders could have made better use of that expertise and dichotomy between the 2 classes. Instead, their first act, before they even had member number one, was to run off to the NHRCK and say “hey those F series guys don’t have to submit to these tests, why should we?.” All that did was drive an enormous wedge between the two groups and create a gulf that will probably never be bridged in the foreseeable future.
That was very poor judgment on their part. I believe that ATEK has made efforts to rectify the problem by mandating 25 per cent representation on their board to F series visa holders, but given the gravity of their original mistake and the level of animosity it created, I doubt that’s going to bring many of us on board.
I agree, Katherine.
I think the whole idea of "discrimination" is a big fat red herring. Most Korean teachers are subject to various background checks, including STD checks, when they are hired in various school systems. That system could be tightened and broadened to included all "irregular" teachers, including hagwon instructors, but it's a myth that there are no Koreans subject to criminal background checks, etc.
What's really at work, I believe, is that there is a perception among ATEK leadership and a lot of teachers in general that a lot of teachers will have something found in their drug tests or background checks, and they're trying to protect those people.
That's the elephant in the room. All this other "human rights violation" stuff is a distraction. The Korean side should humor ATEK and hold all the teachers to the standard that ROK nationals have to go through to get into the same schools. Visa processing would grind to a halt. Oh, yeah, and throw military service for E2 males into the mix, too. You can get your HIV testing done during induction.
E2's are all teachers, and it's reasonable to expect drug tests and background checks for people pursuing these jobs.
ATEK or some other organization should focus first on providing support for teachers whose contracts are not being followed or are being otherwise mistreated — for real.
ROK Hound said
"But why should an F2 teacher or Korean hagwon teacher not be scrutinized just as closely as E2 teachers or Korean PS teachers? Is the job different for them?"
You're right. But before the NHRCK, Wagner isn't complaining about the absence of similar testing for K teachers. He's only raised the issue of the absence of similar testing for other foreigners, namely the F series group. K teachers get a pass. What good does that do anybody ? (except perhaps him and his resume) ATEK publicly supports him in this regard.
fred - you have a law professor who has gone out of his way to write an editorial explaining his views, in which he says the main point of his report to the NHRCK is about KOREAN TEACHERS. But you say, "I totally agree with that but that's just what he writes in the press! his real double secret report is all about screwing foreigners in Korea".
Come on man, your conspiracy theories are just so far around the bend it's unbelievable. Can you hear yourself?
I'd say its probably a safe bet that what the man writes in an editorial is what he means. In the editorial I read Wagner goes after an immigration official for saying foreigners living in Korea don't have constitutional rights.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2009/05/181_41565.html
"Surprisingly for an official working in the justice ministry, Lee dismisses my claim that non-citizens residing in Korea have rights afforded them under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea
..................
Hopefully, the fact that foreigners residing in Korea are indeed "guaranteed fundamental human rights" under the Constitution will figure into the ministry's future immigration policy revisions, because the unconstitutional and discriminatory imposition of compulsory in-country HIV and drug-testing requirements certainly did not."
This isn't someone out to screw you over you fool, he's standing up for rights.
Let's keep this conversation going, but shy away from words like "fool" and phrases like "around the bend," alright? I appreciate it.
fred wrote:
Go over to Dave’s and look at the time and effort one of them is currently putting into helping long term E2s apply for F5 visas. That’s just one example.
Can you provide a link to this discussion?
Jinny, you haven't read the report. I haven't either because it's been withheld. The Joong Ang Daily reporter read it. He says this.
"Under Korea’s current E-2 visa policy, native English-speaking teachers are required to have the checks, while ethnic Korean non-citizen teachers holding F-4 visas and non-citizen teachers married to Koreans who have F-2 visas are not.
Professor Benjamin Wagner said the discrepancy violates the rights of native-English speakers to equal and fair treatment."
See http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2900646
Now read that carefully. Wagner says the discrimination he's complaining about is between the way Korean Immigration Service (KIS) treats E2 visa holders and the way it treats:
(a)ethnic Korean non-citizen teachers holding F-4 visas (i.e gyopos) and
(b)non-citizen teachers married to Koreans who have F-2 visas
K teachers are not part of his complaint.
When we pressed Tony for an answer on this over at Dave's, Tony posted an email from Wagner which confirmed that his complaint didn't address Korean citizen teachers at all. That makes perfect sense. His complaint as filed before the NHRCK alleges discriminatory behavior on the part of KIS. KIS has no jurisdiction to tell a Korean person teaching in this country what hoops they have to jump through to get a job. They can only regulate the activities of foreigners. His complaint says nothing about the differential treatment between foreigners and Koreans, it only addresses the difference in the manner in which KIS treats E2s, gyopos and F series residents, i.e. "Equal Checks For All Foreign Teachers" Read the article. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.
I don't particularly care what Wagner says in an interview or an editorial. He can say whatever he likes there, it's no concern of mine and doesn't affect me one iota. I do however become very concerned about what he has to say when he commences a proceeding before the NHRCK. They are a statutory body in this country with the power to make findings that a particular law is discriminatory and recommend that it be changed. Those changes could include the imposition of E2 like requirements on F2s as well. That is something that directly affects me and not in a good way. He's not standing up for my rights and if he thinks he is, could you please tell him to request my permission next time.
Sorry for being late to the party, but there's quite a few threads going on about everything...
@Mike: I may not be one of the 'major' bloggers you speak of (surely Roboseyo among several other K-blogs get more than my 35,000 or so in the past year), but I don't think there was a conscious effort to enlist the bloggers in the cause. The more popular bloggers either tend to have a positive view to the concept of a group protecting one's rights, or believe it's not appropriate to their blog.
I think we can all agree that the laws, as they currently exist, need to be followed by Korea and Koreans, along with foreigners. The double standard should cease to exist, to say the least. ATEK could do well to help ensure the laws are followed - both the laws regarding the hagwon's treatment of the teacher and the teacher's eligibility in Korea.
As for the E/F visa debate, does anyone have statistics on the **number** of people holding such visas? In a democratic society, the majority of people decide - whether they're here for the short term or long term, whether they're informed voters or people that just randomly choose a person, each vote counts. Just because a person has been here longer doesn't necessarily give them a greater say.
By the way, it doesn't seem fair for any F-series visa holder to somehow have a greater say in how Korea deals with foreigners simply because they've been here longer. Should an American who's lived in America all its life have more say than the American who was just naturalized earlier this year?
Kushibo: http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=111077
A very good friend of mine is behind this. You should ask him his opinion of ATEK ;)
Chris in SK: I disagree. Before The Former Communications Director of Atek (TFCDA) bothered to address the potential membership of ATEK, he was making trips to Seoul and meeting with bloggers to discuss and promote ATEK business (before ATEK had a mandate). He used them as an outlet in order to get his message across. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this - I would consider him an idiot if he did not - but I do think it was something he put considerable effort into. The now defunct atekforming blog handled blogger write-ups in exactly the same way as media write-ups.
"Just because a person has been here longer doesn't necessarily give them a greater say."
The right to vote gives them a greater say, and some F-Visa holders have that right. I can tell you exactly how many E-visa holders have the right: 0
E-2 visa holders are not naturalised citizens. F-Visa holders central to this debate (ie. western F-Visa holders) are not likely to become naturalised either, but they DO hold some voting rights. That alone gives F-Visas a greater say!
I have few questions to throw out there:
Now that the truth about the Wagner report is finally coming to light, can the pro-ATEK people understand why F-Visa holders were so upset that ATEK chose to lead with the equal checks campaign?
ATEK deliberately misled people (E and F visa holders alike) about the true nature of the report. Only when a private email from TFCDA was published on Dave's did relations become strained, and the outright refusal to discuss and admit the true nature of the report after that is why people were so angry.
Do you not feel cheated?
Chris in Korea said
"By the way, it doesn't seem fair for any F-series visa holder to somehow have a greater say in how Korea deals with foreigners simply because they've been here longer. Should an American who's lived in America all its life have more say than the American who was just naturalized earlier this year?"
You’re missing an important factor. F series visa holders are legal residents of Korea. E2s are temporary workers. I’m not saying that to insult them, it’s a simple legal fact. Virtually every country in the world makes a distinction for legal purposes between someone who has been granted residency and someone who is in country on a short term work visa. Residents get more rights than short term workers. It’s true in Canada, the US, England and most EU countries. Why should Korea be any different?
fred - you explained that
"Virtually every country in the world makes a distinction for legal purposes between someone who has been granted residency and someone who is in country on a short term work visa."
So in this case the "distinction for legal purposes" between an E-2 visa teacher of children and an F-2 visa teacher of children, in your opinion, should be: 1. an E-2 visa teacher has to submit criminal background checks and health checks (which are designed to protect the kids)
2. but an F-2 teacher should not be required to submit to those tests.
In other words, an American foreigner who married a Korean but has a record of criminal offenses or illegal drug use should have the right to teach children, but E-2s should not - and the reason for this is because: "F series visa holders are legal residents of Korea. E2s are temporary workers." And "Residents get more rights than short term workers."
You say "It’s true in Canada, the US, England and most EU countries. Why should Korea be any different?" So are you saying in Canada, the US, and England it wouldn't be wrong to say that foreigners who work with children but are NOT married to nationals must submit to criminal background checks - however, if a foreigner happens to be married to a national then no background checks will apply?
Think about how that would work if it were applied to pilots who are drug and alcohol tested before flying planes. We have a rule to drug and alcohol check pilots in order to protect the passengers. So all pilots must be drug and alcohol tested before flying. However, if you happen to have Korean blood or are married to someone with Korean blood, you don't have to take the tests. The Korean blood alone will provide the passengers with enough protection.
If you had read my last post carefully you would have seen that I pointed out the distinction in response to the suggestion made by Chris in Korea that it seemed unfair for any F-series visa holder to somehow have a greater say in how Korea deals with foreigners simply because they've been here longer. I made this point because many of ATEK’s supporters seem to be under the impression that Korea is the only country in the world where marrying a citizen, and thereby obtaining residency, grants you greater rights. It’s not. Almost every country in the world deals with foreign spouses of their nationals in exactly the same fashion. You may not like it but it’s an international reality.
As I have already stated before in this thread, I completely agree that all individuals teaching in Korea should be subject to whatever standards the Korean government deems necessary in this country for the protection of children, regardless of national origin. As an F visa holder I’m perfectly willing to jump through whatever hoops they demand, so long as my E2, gyopo and Korean citizen colleagues do so too.
Sadly, that’s not what Wagner asks the NHRCK to do. He gives the K teacher a pass and simply points to the F series teacher and gyopo when making his case. KIS has already made it crystal clear on their website that they have no intention of dropping those requirements for E2s which means the only possible course of action they can take in response to a favorable ruling by the NHRCK is to impose them on F series teachers as well.
Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense that foreigners and gyopos should be subject to those requirements while Korean citizen teachers aren’t? If you support Wagner (and ATEK does), that’s precisely the absurdity you’re advocating.
Don’t make your argument to me, I agree with you. Make it to Wagner. Press conferences, interviews and editorials aside. In his report to the NHRCK he is advancing the very position you find so objectionable.
JSK:
You are missing the point, much like ATEK has.
In Korea, it is a legal requirement that all teachers provide criminal background checks if they are working with children. It is the responsibility of employers to ensure that these checks are carried out.
The problem is not the law. The problem is employers who ignore the law.
Instead of tackling the real issue (employers ignoring the law), ATEK tried to make this an immigration issue.
Their argument was founded on the premise that F-visa holders are a danger to Korean society, and so should be checked as a matter of routine by IMMIGRATION. F-Visa holders should be checked by immigration at the point of entry, much like E-2 visas are. I was checked. I provided a background and health check, just like every other E-2 visa holder. Then I married a Korean. Should I now have to go through the checks again?
You really want equal checks? F-5 visa holders are credit checked before they get their visa. Imagine how many E-2 visa holders would be allowed in country if being debt-free was a requirement. Of course, F-visa holders would never suggest this, as they recognise the difference between visa types.
ATEK named F-visa holders as a menace to Korean society. They want immigration to make it harder for F-Visa holders, and want to move employment law into the realm of Immigration.
If Immigration decided that all checks were dropped for E-visa holders, they would still be required by the employer. The reason you do not provide them with a criminal check is because your E-2 is a kind of 'pass' that allows you to work in a teaching position without providing the checks every time.
Clarification: F-Visa holders, having provided a check from their home countries when applying, are only required to provide a KOREAN criminal record check when they change employers, though some employers still request one from home. If an F-2 Visa holder leaved Korea for too long a period, they must re-apply for the visa with immigration, getting checked again. An F-5 visa holder is able to avoid being re-checked, but then an F-5 visa is very difficult to acquire.
JSK, what you say makes sense. i thought the whole point was to show how screwy the reasoning is and then get the health checks dropped.
Hi fred, hi mike - so I'm trying to understand what you guys are saying. Cuz it doesn't match up with what ive read on my own. im thinking you must have some kind of information i dont have or..... you guys are just jumping to conclusions for whatever reasons.
Let me see if i got it right - the report by the prof is not what he says in the papers. its all about F teachers being bad guys. it doesn't talk about Koreans. the prof talks about Koreans a lot in the papers, but thats just a cover-up or something. He's really out to get Fs. And the ATEK is behind this. They are also out to get the Fs.
so people wanna get the report to show how there's a sneaky fraud going on.
im with you. if thats whats going on. we shouldnt allow it. but how do you guys figure this? what info do you have? i saw that JoongAng article someone mention but is that it? cuz it doesnt read like what your saying. why shouldn't i believe what the prof wrote in the papers?
“In Korea, it is a legal requirement that all teachers provide criminal background checks if they are working with children. It is the responsibility of employers to ensure that these checks are carried out.”
You’re incorrect. Under Korean law CBCs are only required of anyone working in a public school. F2, gyopos and Korean citizens working as hagwon teachers are not required by law to submit CBCs, HIV or drug tests. They only need to verify their degree.
“F-Visa holders should be checked by immigration at the point of entry”
This isn’t practical. Most FTs who marry Koreans do so in Korea and are already residing here. They get their F2 in country. You do not have to provide a CBC from any country to get an F2 if you're applying from within Korea. I don't know if it's required if you apply from outsde the country. You may have to provide one to get an F5. I don't know.
“ATEK named F-visa holders as a menace to Korean society. They want immigration to make it harder for F-Visa holders, and want to move employment law into the realm of Immigration.”
You raise a good point here. The drug tests and HIV requirements are not mandated by the Ministry of Education. They are “entry” requirements stipulated by KIS. You have to submit them from outside the country in order to get permission to enter Korea. Of course, even ATEK will concede that if you are a foreigner living outside the country, you have no rights under Korean law. Demanding these things of E2 applicants is not a violation of Korea’s constitution or its human rights laws because applicants aren’t here at the time they apply. Countries are entitled to set whatever requirements they want as a precondition to entry. It’s their sovereign right. The US did it after 9/11, suddenly requiring everyone to submit photos and fingerprints as a precondition to entry. There’s nothing you can do about that.
If you’re already here and have to do a visa run to renew, again, you’re then applying from outside the country and any legal rights you may have had in Korea are lost the moment your original visa expires and you are required to leave.
If you are already in Korea and can renew your visa without a visa run (e.g. you’re renewing at the same school), you can then claim the protection of Korea’s constitution and human rights law and claim discrimination because you’re in the country. This is the best argument ATEK has, but I suspect that if the NHRCK finds that KIS practice discriminatory, KIS will just stop renewing visas in country, and require everyone to leave if they want a renewal. And, as a sovereign nation Korea is perfectly entitled to do that also. There won’t be anything you can do about that as you have no legal right to demand an automatic renewal of your one year E2 visa. The net result will be more inconvenient and expensive visa runs for E2s. How does that help anyone?
It’s tempting to look at this situation and say “that white guy doesn’t have too pee in a bottle and I do, that’s unfair”. The fact is that the whole issue is a lot more complicated than that.
The simplest solution would be for the MOE to just mandate a single standard for all teachers; foreign, gyopo and Korean, hagwon and public school alike. That would be fair and completely solve the problem. Again, Wagner isn’t asking for that and to the best of my knowledge neither is ATEK.
Jinny
"im with you. if thats whats going on. we shouldnt allow it. but how do you guys figure this? what info do you have? i saw that JoongAng article someone mention but is that it? cuz it doesnt read like what your saying. why shouldn't i believe what the prof wrote in the papers?"
I'm going to repost what I said earlier about this. I think you'll see what we're saying. The Joong Ang Daily reported this;
"Under Korea’s current E-2 visa policy, native English-speaking teachers are required to have the checks, while ethnic Korean non-citizen teachers holding F-4 visas and non-citizen teachers married to Koreans who have F-2 visas are not.
Professor Benjamin Wagner said the discrepancy violates the rights of native-English speakers to equal and fair treatment."
See http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2900646
Now read that carefully. Wagner says the discrimination he's complaining about is between the way Korean Immigration Service (KIS) treats E2 visa holders and the way it treats:
(a)ethnic Korean non-citizen teachers holding F-4 visas (i.e gyopos) and
(b)non-citizen teachers married to Koreans who have F-2 visas
There is no mention of Korean citizen teachers. When we pressed Tony for clarification on that point over at Dave's he kept assuring us that we had it wrong, K teachers were included. We asked to see the report to satisfy ourselves and Tony told us , no problem, email Wagner, he'll give you a copy because it was filed with the NHRCK as "open and non confidential" and anybody can see it. But when we asked Wagner he refused. So we went back to Tony and asked to see ATEK's copy. He also refused. Finally Tony posted an email from Wagner in which he discussed the report's contents (but still didn't provide a copy of the full text). Apparently Wagner didn't have an account at Dave's and asked Tony to post it for him. Lo and behold there it was, plain as day. He wasn't complaining about the absence of testing for Korean citizens, just F series visa holders and gyopos.
The F series crowd, including myself, were livid and shortly thereafter, Tony pretty much stopped responding to us.
There is a very simple explanation for why Wagner did it this way. His report alleges discriminatory behavior on the part of the KIS because they are imposing visa requirements on E2s that they don’t impose on F2s or gyopos. KIS has jurisdiction over E2s, F series folk and gyopos. It has no jurisdiction to mandate what requirements Korean citizen teachers must meet in order to teach and couldn't in a million years pass a law requiring K teachers to submit to drug and HIV testing. They only have the power to regulate immigration related matters. If Wagner had included K teachers in his report he would he looked rather foolish. The Korean Immigration service has no power over them, and that would have been a complete defense to his case. As a result, he limited his allegations to the group KIS does have jurisdiction over, F series people and gyopos.
It’s a good legal strategy if all you’re concerned with is winning your case but frankly, winning a discrimination case in a country that boasts "one nation, one blood" is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. The results of the NHRCK investigation will do nothing to benefit the foreign teacher community with the possible exception of ensnaring the F series people into the same discriminatory practices his report complains of. And ATEK backed this guy!
"This isn’t practical. Most FTs who marry Koreans do so in Korea and are already residing here. They get their F2 in country. You do not have to provide a CBC from any country to get an F2 if you're applying from within Korea."
Think back to before they got their F-2. What kind of visa were they on then? That's right, E-2's!
I am a relatively new F-2 holder. I have only had it for around 14 months. My wife was told that a criminal check was not required, as I had already submitted one (I was PS before). That would lead me to believe that any people not checked on entry are required to be checked before they can have an F-2.
Just because they don't ask for one when you upgrade from E-2, does not mean it isn't required.
Jinny: Think about it...
They are saying that Immigration are being discriminatory. Why would a naturalised Korean be dealing with Immigration? How much sway do US immigration have over the hiring and firing of US citizens working for US organisations in the US? I would guess none. The same goes for EVERY country.
The only people who deal with Immigration are foreigners. If the argument was about Koreans v Foreigners, it would be an issue with our employers, the government, or the ministry of education.
The fact that it is an immigration issue means that they are comparing E-2 visas with other visa types.
Mike go to the KIS website. A CBC is not a required document when applying for an F2.
Hey fred:
can I ask you to fire me an e-mail at roboseyo[at]gmail[dot]com?
Thanks.
Perhaps I can just add something here about the Wagner report that I wanted to say yesterday. To the best of my knowledge he hasn't attacked F series visa holders in his report or otherwise targeted them as "bad guys". I don't know where that information is coming from, please correct me if I'm misinformed and you can point me to the source of that information.
Fred: This is from the KIS Website:
• Required Documents - Items subject to change depending on individual circumstances If you are a teacher, you should have already been checked. If you have not been thoroughly checked out, you will be.
The 'individual circumstances' catch-all is there because they have only listed the documents that everybody needs, regardless of their circumstances.
When I applied, my wife was presented with a list (in Korean) of 15-20 things that were required. Some were crossed out, due to my circumstances, and these included the medical/criminal checks.
Some older F-visa holders may not have been checked out. Perhaps they were given their visa before the process included such thorough checking? Back in the day, F-Visa holders were not allowed to work and had to apply for a different visa, so perhaps there is an issue there.
Do you propose those people are stripped of their visa's until they can prove they have no record in a country they last lived in a long long time ago? If so, that is ridiculous and WOULD be an infringement on their human rights. That would be just like letting E-2 visa holders into the country and then requiring further checks from them. (Yes, I know that happens. It happened to me. It is insane).
Or would you expect employers to exercise due diligence? Forcing employers to check their teachers, will keep immigration out of the picture AND solving the problem!
Once again - ATEK have made this a fight between F-visa holders and E-2 visa holders. It should have been a fight between teachers and employers.
bymybook(BMB) never said he/she was part of ATEK, he/she only supported ATEK and why would Tony have to respond to what any/all supporters say about ATEK? The fact is that he did respond to that so please stop attacking Tony for something he supposedly didn’t do. I’ll tell you something else Tony did and that is repeatedly answer the same questions over, and over, and over again. How many different ways can someone explain that they didn’t ever say they spoke for 20 – 25 thousand teachers? Yet, that continues to be brought up again, and again, and again. Tony or ATEK cannot force a Korean newspaper to retract anything!!!
What good does it do for E-2 visa holders to be tested/screened as we are when F-series visa holders can come here without being tested/screened/whether criminals or not? BMB’s comment about foreigners marrying Koreans to better their lives rather than love, don’t people do that all around the world? Why would that offend F-series holders unless there were some truth to it? Beleive it or not it was once said at a Seoul Town Hall meeting that what Immigration was doing was forcing E-2 visa holders to marry Korean Nationals, so it surely isn’t the first time that idea was suggested. I suggest you check exactly who was the 1st to attack, I doubt it was BMB and even if it were so, that sounds like a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the facts.
Some anti-ATEKers have said ATEK won’t have any effect on anything, others have said ATEK is interfering in their lives, which is it? And just how have they done that? Again, pure conjecture which is what the ATEK thread is mostly based upon other than the attacks allowed. I vow to stay away from that place/those people and hope the character assassination allowed steers many away forever.
Mike...Tony didn’t dodge the question about Filipino and Indian teachers, Tony answered that by saying ATEK will wait for the members to vote. Please stop attacking Tony unfairly, don’t you have enough worthwhile reasons to be against ATEK?
FRED: “The problems in that respect began with ATEK’s “Equal Checks” campaign and their support of Prof. Wagner’s report which, it must be remembered, does not allege that discrimination is taking place as between foreigners and Korean citizens, but rather as between E2s and F series visa holders. Of course, Prof. Wagner, not being an English teacher, probably didn’t care much about the rift this would create between E2s and the F series folks. Why should he, it’s not his concern. He’s a law professor.”
Your point about "Why didn’t B. Wagner mention the discrimination between Korean Nationals and E- Visa holders?"
He DID!!! I suggest you check on that.
Maybe he didn’t focus on it but I’d guess one reason is that Korean Nationals don’t need a Visa to teach?
The “big secret” is not a secret. ATEK and/or B.Wagner hasn't made B. Wagner’s report public out of respect for the NHRCK, until they make a decision. Again, that has been explained numerous times but trolls continue to run with anything. Go figure, ATEK did something right but catch flack from the uninformed or those who play stupid? I doubt any answer would be good enough no matter what, did Tony EVER answer ANYTHING that satisfied ANYONE?
Another adnauseam comment is “ATEK has interfered in my life.” I say only if anti-ATEKers have let it because they surely haven’t had to do anything as of yet. How many laws did "TheChickenLover" say ATEK/Tony broke, wasn't it about seventeen? The part where he says ATEK has interfered in his and his wife's life will be ignored because in that part of his complaint that can't be possible as no decision/action has been made yet by the NHRCK or Immigration.
Fred, I posted before reading your last comment. I'm glad you got that fact straight, I wish others would as well.
About your last post/sentence..." I don't know where that information is coming from, please correct me if I'm misinformed and you can point me to the source of that information."
I believe I read it on the Marmot's Hole.
I think a lot of has to do with hype, to get people(anti-ATEKers) riled up. Plese check to see where such misinformation is coming from and disregard such information from that place/person in the future. Perhaps you could also inform whoever is providing misinformation with correct information because whoever that might be is probably still running with it.
Anonymous: It would help to have a specific URL, and maybe even a quote: the Marmot's Hole has over a thousand posts.
Anonymous said... wrote
“The “big secret” is not a secret. ATEK and/or B.Wagner hasn't made B. Wagner’s report public out of respect for the NHRCK, until they make a decision. “
Perhaps you can explain that to me. He files his report, he provides a copy to ATEK, who at that stage were nothing more than a group of three individuals representing no one but themselves, and he provides copies to any reporter who cares to request one or stick a microphone is his face. That’s respectful of the NHRCK, but providing a copy to an F2 visa holder whose work rights in this country are jeopardized by the report isn’t. How so? Surely you’re joking.
Anonymous said... wrote
“Again, that has been explained numerous times but trolls continue to run with anything.“
No, you’re wrong. We were told by Tony that we could get a copy if we just took the time to ask. Don’t take my word for it, ask Tony. He’s the one who put me in touch with Wagner for that very purpose. And btw, I am not a troll.
Leaving aside the question of whether what you’re saying above even constitutes an explanation for not producing the report, it was never explained on Dave’s by anyone from ATEK. I tried, but when I posted Wagner’s explanation for refusing his report on the board the entire thread was pulled for a week because I had posted a private email, which, in retrospect was a mistake on my part. I humbly apologized to the board, the mods and directly to Wagner. ATEK might have learned something from that. When you screw up, own up to it, promptly apologize and take your lumps.
Anonymous said... wrote
“BMB’s comment about foreigners marrying Koreans to better their lives rather than love, don’t people do that all around the world? Why would that offend F-series holders unless there were some truth to it?”
It was offensive because he made it as a general statement of fact. Pretty strange behavior for a guy who feels he’s the victim on negative stereotyping in Korea. Saying that most foreigners marry Koreans so they can get work visas is no different than Koreans saying most foreign English teachers are law breaking, doping smoking, sexual misfits. Pot meet kettle.
It was rude, inappropriate and uncalled for, not to mention completely untrue. I married my wife because I loved her, as did every other F2 person I’ve ever met in this country, not because we needed a visa. He should have apologized and withdrawn the remark. He didn’t. There's your troll.
Anonymous said... wrote
“Your point about "Why didn’t B. Wagner mention the discrimination between Korean Nationals and E- Visa holders?"
He DID!!! I suggest you check on that.
Maybe he didn’t focus on it but I’d guess one reason is that Korean Nationals don’t need a Visa to teach?”
That’s exactly the point I’ve already made here several times. The KIS can’t regulate what requirements K teachers have to meet in order to teach. This means, the outcome of his complaint can’t affect them. Wagner can “mention”, “talk about”, “discuss”, “bring up”, “remark on”, “refer to” or “elude to” Korean teachers all he likes in his report, editorials and interviews. But when the rubber meets the road, all KIS can do (if they choose to do anything at all) to eliminate the unfairness he complains of, is impose the same requirements on F series visa holders. They can’t touch the K teacher. The reason being, that notwithstanding all his “talk” about K teachers, in the end he is only alleging discrimination in the manner in which KIS deals with different classes of foreigners.
The net result of that (if there is a result) will be to expand the class of foreigners being unfairly stereotyped and thereby further reinforce the widely held view in this country that anyone who is a foreigner teaching English here is a threat to Korean children. I don’t think that’s very helpful, unless of course there are E2s out there who will take some perverse pleasure in knowing that even more foreigners are being dealt with unfairly. And apparently there are, according to the Korea Times;
“In response, many E-2 visa holders have complained that the government should apply the same visa screening rules to foreign English teachers holding other visas. They are urging the government to use the same restrictions on teachers holding E-1 (professorship), F-2 (spouse of a Korean) or F-4 (ethnic Korean) visas.”
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/02/117_38955.html
Anonymous said... wrote
“Another adnauseam comment is “ATEK has interfered in my life.” I say only if anti-ATEKers have let it because they surely haven’t had to do anything as of yet. How many laws did "TheChickenLover" say ATEK/Tony broke, wasn't it about seventeen? The part where he says ATEK has interfered in his and his wife's life will be ignored because in that part of his complaint that can't be possible as no decision/action has been made yet by the NHRCK or Immigration.”
That’s a little like saying “there’s a car bearing directly down on me at 70 mph but there’s no need to do anything about it because it hasn’t hit me yet.” That’s just nonsense. I don’t think I have to wait for immigration to send me a letter demanding a CBC, drug and HIV screen before I start taking steps to prevent that possibility.
If the NHRCK finds that KIS is discriminating against E2s and recommends that it bring its practices in line with anti-discrimination laws, KIS will have essentially four choices.
1. Eliminate the drug/HIV tests for E2s. (Highly unlikely. Once again. Don’t believe me. Go over to KIS’s website, look under “News Releases” on the front page, read the article entitled "Misunderstanding About Visa Rules" and see what they’re saying there about the Wagner report)
2. Completely ignore the NHRCK ruling.
3. Refuse to renew any E2 visa in country and require you to leave the country each year to renew your visa. (Say goodbye to your right to claim discrimination and hello to the bartender at the Fukuoka airport. You’ll be getting to know him rather well.)
4. Impose the same tests on F visa holders who are employed as English teachers (The most expedient way to satisfy the NHRCK and the ATEK crowd. ATEK keeps telling us KIS would never do anything this crazy. In the same breath they complain about the crazy KIS overreaction to the CPN affair. I'm confused. Which is it, are they rational or crazy?).
The only one of those options that can do anything to assist the foreign teaching community is option 1 and it is just never going to happen. Option 2 maintains the status quo and options 3 and 4 actually hurt the teaching community. In launching their campaign ATEK either knew they were jeopardizing F series visa teachers and were willing to risk it or they didn’t care. It’s easy for E2s to support the “Equal Checks” campaign. They weren’t the ones being thrown under the bus and nobody was rolling the dice with their work rights.
I’m going to repeat something that was pointed out over at Dave’s several times because most E2s don’t know and probably don’t care about the history behind the F series visa.
There was no visa for foreigners who married Koreans until 1997. A friend of mine married a Korean in the early 90’s and went down to KIS to get a spousal visa. They laughed at him and told him there was no such thing in Korea. They said “You married her, now take her home”. True story.
Then in 1997 they created a spousal visa which granted you the right to reside here with your Korean spouse. But, unlike most countries in the world, Korea's spousal visa had no work rights attached to it. If you wanted to work you had to get another visa. If you wanted to work as an English teacher you had to get an E2. Folks used to joke that the F2 visa granted you the right to live in Korea and leech off your wife.
Finally in 2004 Korea created the present F2 which gave rights of residency and the full right to work just like any other resident of this country. Like it or not, that was a step forward for at least a portion of the teaching community and represented a real victory for the human rights of a few foreigners. F series folk waited a long time to get this far. Now ATEK’s campaign threatens to roll the clock back, and effectively force F2s to get E2s again if they want to teach. Again, for the umpteenth time, how does that help anyone?
Hey all. I'd love for you to keep talking, but I'd also like it if the somewhat accusing and aggressive tone of some recent comments give way to a factual and informative tone.
Thanks for keeping the conversation going: it's been very interesting so far.
I'd like to keep it clean as well, and would really appreciate if folks didn't refer to those who oppose ATEK as trolls, fools, cowards or other derogatory terms. We have legitimate concerns with the manner in which ATEK has proceeded, and the manner in which it affects our situation here. I'm here in the hopes that others might be better informed as to our position.
What was done to Tony Hellmann over at Dave's was despicable, but it was done by a few foolish individuals who preferred to attack the messenger instead of the message. I for one tried to come to his defense as did a few others.
That's not to say however that I don't have some serious issues with the message and hope we can confine our discussion to that.
I thought Fred was talking about B. Wagners report not including Korean Teachers for HIV/criminal checks but since he admits B.Wagner hasn't attacked F series visa holders then...I will give the link to the ATEK interview with B. Wagner and point out the first question where B. Wagner states that the reason this grabbed his attention was because Koreans were not to be tested = discrimination.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/02/04/atek-interview-with-prof-benjamin-wagner/
Fred: I'll use your analogy of "possibly" being hit by a truck and say that we E-2 Visa holders have already been hit by that truck and it seems you and others want to beat us down and keep us there?
Would you have supported E-2 Visa holders had we conducted daily/hundreds of one man demonstrations after Christopher Paul Neil was caught in Thailand via S. Korea because we feared that Immigration "might" discriminate against us by imposing new HIV/Criminal check regulations? I didn't think so!
It is not fair that you or anyone blame ATEK for what the Korean Ministry of Justice or Immigration does. Thinking pessimistically like many of the anti-ATEKers it is the Korean government who might pull the trigger, not ATEK!
I do not think that way though, I think some good will come out of all this.
Fred:
"I'd like to keep it clean as well, and would really appreciate if folks didn't refer to those who oppose ATEK as trolls, fools, cowards or other derogatory terms."
I'll own up to that: guilty as charged, for my part (see the post that started this all), and to those who have done a lot of work to articulate the anti-ATEK position without the hysterics and personal attacks we saw at Dave's: folks like you and Mike, I respectfully take it back.
As long as the discussion remains issue oriented, I'm happy to watch it develop.
Anon: I'll use your analogy of "possibly" being hit by a truck and say that we E-2 Visa holders have already been hit by that truck and it seems you and others want to beat us down and keep us there?That's not how the anti-ATEK people see it. WE want to help you out, tell you how to sue and claim what is rightfully yours, and make sure it never happens again.
ATEK, on the other hand? They figure we should all be hit by trucks and are lining them up as we speak.
Anonymous said...wrote
"Would you have supported E-2 Visa holders had we conducted daily/hundreds of one man demonstrations after Christopher Paul Neil was caught in Thailand via S. Korea because we feared that Immigration "might" discriminate against us by imposing new HIV/Criminal check regulations? I didn't think so!"
If ATEK had been around a few years ago when KIS started considering the new requirements for E2s and ATEK had gotten wind of that fact, do you think they would have said “Well, you know, KIS hasn’t actually done anything yet. Let’s just wait and see what happens”. I doubt it. They would have been taking any and all actions possible to prevent it. If they didn’t, their members would have been livid, and rightly so. And, as a matter of fact, I would have supported whatever reasonable steps they took to protect teacher’s interests in those circumstances.
Anonymous said...wrote
"It is not fair that you or anyone blame ATEK for what the Korean Ministry of Justice or Immigration does. Thinking pessimistically like many of the anti-ATEKers it is the Korean government who might pull the trigger, not ATEK!"
But ATEK put the gun in their hand. I’ll post the quote from the Korea Times again in case you missed it in my previous comment. There are at least some E2s who are asking them to curtail our rights. Read the quote from the Korea Times;
“In response, many E-2 visa holders have complained that the government should apply the same visa screening rules to foreign English teachers holding other visas. They are urging the government to use the same restrictions on teachers holding E-1 (professorship), F-2 (spouse of a Korean) or F-4 (ethnic Korean) visas.”
Take a moment to read that again because it’s really quite fascinating. That’s foreigners asking the Korean government to apply a discriminatory practice to even more foreigners. The guys over at KIS must be getting a good laugh out of that.
KIS was quite happy to leave us F2 types alone to support our families until ATEK came along and stirred the pot. But for Christopher Paul Neil, you wouldn’t be subject to these requirements. But for ATEK, I wouldn’t be worried about having to submit to them as well.
Anonymous said...wrote
"I do not think that way though, I think some good will come out of all this."
And I say again. It’s easy for you to be optimistic, you have nothing to lose. I do. ATEK didn’t roll the dice with your ability to support yourself or your family, they gambled with mine instead. Please try to understand that.
Anonymous said...
"Fred: I'll use your analogy of "possibly" being hit by a truck and say that we E-2 Visa holders have already been hit by that truck and it seems you and others want to beat us down and keep us there?"
No one is trying to beat you down or keep you anywhere. Please feel free to take whatever steps you deem necessary to further your interests. If there’s anything I can do to assist, please let me know. I’ll see what I can do. Just don’t do it at my expense or that of my family please.
You know if ATEK’s “Equal Checks” campaign had actually been that; if they were asking the government to either apply these standards to all teachers, foreign and Korean, or none at all, I would have supported them. I wouldn’t have been too happy about the possibility of having to jump through these extra hoops to keep my job, but I would have been willing to take one for the team, because at least that would have sent the correct message to the government here, i.e. don’t make sweeping negative generalizations about foreign teachers, we’re no different than Korean teachers.
Asking the Korean government to just treat all foreigners the same, which is what Wagner is really asking for in his report to the NHRCK, sends the exact opposite message i.e. we’re different and it’s just fine to treat us differently. That approach only serves to reinforce the view that we’re all somehow dangerous. And I end yet another post with the same unanswered question; how does that help anyone?
>“In response, many E-2 visa
>holders have complained that the
>government should apply the same
>visa screening rules to foreign English teachers holding other
>visas. They are urging the
>government to use the same
>restrictions on teachers holding
>E-1 (professorship), F-2 (spouse of
>a Korean) or F-4 (ethnic Korean)
>visas.”
That was a misunderstanding of Benjamin Wagner's report. The Korean language papers all said the same thing. They were wrong.
>You know if ATEK’s “Equal
>Checks” campaign had actually
>been that; if they were asking
>the government to either apply
>these standards to all teachers,
>foreign and Korean, or none at
>all, I would have supported them.
I've said over and over since this broke that we are asking the government to hold all teachers to the nationally mandated standard of Korean public school teachers: criminal check, academic degree verification, no drug test, no HIV test.
Tony Hellmann wrote:
I've said over and over since this broke that we are asking the government to hold all teachers to the nationally mandated standard of Korean public school teachers: criminal check, academic degree verification, no drug test, no HIV test. [emphasis mine]
I think you are perpetuating a fiction, sir.
Korean teachers are subject to HIV tests and possibly also drug tests through military service and mandated health exams.
Even if they are not subject to the drug tests, they spend their lives in Korea where their arrest records would reflect arrest for drug use. While that's not exactly the same as a direct drug test, it covers most of the same ground.
I'd like to see you address what I wrote earlier:
What's really at work, I believe, is that there is a perception among ATEK leadership and a lot of teachers in general that a lot of teachers will have something found in their drug tests or background checks, and they're trying to protect those people.
Do you feel that if mandatory drug testing and background checks, as well as HIV tests, were put in place for all, that a large number of people would find themselves in hot water?
That was a misunderstanding of Benjamin Wagner's report. The Korean language papers all said the same thing. They were wrong.Here's my summary. Please feel free to correct it, as I am just going off the information made publicly available.
- Wagner's report alleges discrimination on the part of Immigration with regard to E-2 visa holders
- Wagner wants immigration to make things less discriminatory by requesting the same checks from everybody.
- Immigration have jurisdiction over foreigners, only foreigner, and nobody but foreigners.
I fail to see how immigration can be made to force checks on teachers who do not fall under their jurisdiction (ie. Korean Nationals). They can not force employment checks on people who have visa's that are not tied to employment (Family, tourism, etc).
Telling us that the newspapers have got it wrong is fine, but here we are 4 months after the backlash started, and ATEK have still not told us what is in the report. Telling us repeatedly that we are wrong, or that the news outlets are wrong, is not good enough.
Are you also telling us that YOUR interview with Wagner" is also wrong?
"When F-2s and F-4s are doing the same work as other non-citizens on E-2 visas, not holding them same requirements would also be discriminatory."I've said over and over since this broke that we are asking the government to hold all teachers to the nationally mandated standard of Korean public school teachers: criminal check, academic degree verification, no drug test, no HIV test.You forgot Korean Teaching Certificate...
>What's really at work, I believe,
>is that there is a perception
>among ATEK leadership and a lot
> of teachers in general that a
>lot of teachers will have
>something found in their drug
>tests or background checks, and
>they're trying to protect those
>people.
This is categorically false.
>Do you feel that if mandatory
>drug testing and background
>checks, as well as HIV tests,
>were put in place for all, that a
>large number of people would find
>themselves in hot water?
No. They're already in place for almost 20,000 E-2 visa holders, and they haven't turned up much of anything.
>Here's my summary. Please feel
>free to correct it, as I am just
>going off the information made
>publicly available.
>- Wagner's report alleges
>discrimination on the part of
>Immigration with regard to E-2
>visa holders.
Wagner's report alleges discrimination on the part of the Korean government. This is an important distinction, for reasons you'll see below.
>- Wagner wants immigration to
>make things less discriminatory
>by requesting the same checks
>from everybody.
Wagner wants the government to stop engaging in unreasonable discrimination, by following its own laws (the constitution).
>- Immigration have jurisdiction
>over foreigners, only foreigner,
>and nobody but foreigners.
The government has jurisdiction over everyone. The constitution has jurisdiction over everyone.
>I fail to see how immigration can
>be made to force checks on
>teachers who do not fall under
>their jurisdiction (ie. Korean
>Nationals). They can not force
>employment checks on people who
>have visa's that are not tied to
>employment (Family, tourism, etc).
The burden is on the government as a whole, not one division. The overarching applicability of the Korean constitution makes this the case.
>Telling us that the newspapers
>have got it wrong is fine, but
>here we are 4 months after the
>backlash started, and ATEK have
>still not told us what is in the
>report. Telling us repeatedly
>that we are wrong, or that the
>news outlets are wrong, is not
>good enough.
Take it up with ATEK. That ain't me anymore.
>You forgot Korean Teaching Certificate...
That's a whole other can of worms.
What's currently happening with ATEK? I signed up because I'm really into the idea of starting a true teacher community here in South Korea - not one scattered across various Facebook groups and blogs. I signed up but haven't heard anything yet. I think an organization like this would be especially great for those of us in the provinces like Gyeongbuk, where pretty much everything is rural.
Tony H said...
"That was a misunderstanding of Benjamin Wagner's report. The Korean language papers all said the same thing. They were wrong."
That’s not what Wagner said in the email you posted over at Dave’s. He said the Joong Ang Daily report I refer to above was accurate and that article confirms that he is only alleging discrimination as between the different visa classes. His email’s been deleted from Dave’s. I’m assuming you still have a copy. Go back and look at it and tell me if I’m wrong on that. Better yet, post it here, so we can all see it and put the whole issue to bed. Of course, if he’d just release his report, we’d be able to see for ourselves what he actually says and the mystery would be solved.
Tony H said...
"The government has jurisdiction over everyone. The constitution has jurisdiction over everyone."
Now I’m quite certain Wagner isn’t taking this simplistic view of things. The government doesn’t act en masse. It acts through various ministries with their own legislatively defined areas of responsibility. The MOE mandates teaching standards. They say to teach in a public school you need to verify your degree and provide a CBC. To teach in a hagwon you only have to verify your degree. Makes sense to me. Public school education is mandatory. Hagwons are optional, hence the higher standard for public schools.
Besides, those standards are applied equally to foreigners and Koreans. Even F2s have to provide a CBC to work in a public school. In fact, as Mike points out, foreigners get a break. They don’t need to have degrees in education or be certified to teach in a public school, Koreans do. If, as you claim, ATEK supports a single standard for all, K teachers in public schools should probably launch a human rights complaint. It doesn’t sound fair to me that anyone should be exempted from certification requirements just because they were born on the other side of the globe.
It seems a single standard is what ATEK wants only when it suits their interests and that’s simply hypocritical. Why not just admit the obvious. You’re not asking the government to hold all teachers to the nationally mandated standard of Korean public school teachers. You’re just cherry picking what requirements you want foreigners to meet and ignoring the rest. That’s not another can of worms. It’s central to the issue, but my compliments on the dodge.
The KIS on the other hand are responsible for determining who can and cannot enter Korea and under what conditions. To enter on an E2 you have to provide, among other things, an HIV and drug screen. Those aren’t educational requirements mandated by the MOE, they’re entry requirements mandated by KIS. Again, I repeat, Korea is a sovereign country and can set whatever entry requirements it wants for foreigners and no Canadian, American, Brit or anyone else has any right to tell them what they can or cannot do in this area. Up until Korea’s entry into the visa waiver program last year, the US required a complete list of seemingly ridiculous things from Koreans who applied for a visa to visit America and an even longer list for those who wished to work there. Can you imagine some Korean guy who had never set foot in America telling the US government that those requirements violated his civil rights under the American constitution? I’m guessing that argument wouldn’t get him very far. He doesn’t have any rights under the US constitution, just as foreigners applying for E2s from their home countries have no rights under Korean law.
So that leaves the handful of foreigners who are renewing their visas from within the country. They’re already here and can quite rightfully claim rights under Korean law. As I already said, the KIS can make quick work of them. They’ll just stop renewing visas here and send you all home if you want to renew, something they have every right to do because you have a one year visa and no right to demand a renewal. The minute you’re on the plane, any rights you may have had under Korean law vanish into thin air and you’ll jump through whatever hoops Korea wants you to if you want to come back. Don’t like it? Sorry, it’s their country, yours is on the other side of the planet. I’m not trying to be snarky. That’s just the way it is,
You know it took the more rational people over at Dave’s about a week and a half to figure out that the “Equal Checks” campaign was ill advised and had no chance of improving the lot of English teachers here. Why is it that almost four months later ATEK is still stubbornly refusing to see that too?
Andrea Vandom who refused to do the E-2 tests has an Op/Ed in the KT today.
It's interesting:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/137_45155.html
Here’s the original KT article complaining about Vandom.
He writes: “As an airline pilot, I am subject to an annual physical exam, as well as random alcohol and drug testing. If I do not like this, I am free to pack my bags and leave the country. I assume that Vandom has the same option.”
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/04/137_42435.html
But here's a ``hypothetical" for him: what if his co-pilot wasn't required to do any of the tests because he was a Korean citizen or married to a Korean or of Korean descent? Would that be ok?
Because that's how it is with English teachers in Korea. A solid tie to the ``Korean bloodline" is all the government requires to guarantee that teachers are safe ― no drug tests required. How would that policy be up there in the cockpit? More scaremongering, based on the fiction that ATEK created. This just shows how divided the community has become after the Equal Checks campaign.
Sad!
Tony Hellmann wrote:
No. They're already in place for almost 20,000 E-2 visa holders, and they haven't turned up much of anything.
Can you please quantify "not much of anything"?
Benjamin Wagner quantifies it. Read the Wagner report at Gusts. It is all there in black and white.
I'd just like to say, to all of you who said ATEK and or Prof. Wagner was lying ("perpetuating a fiction," "distorting facts," "waffling," etc.) about Equal Checks or the report, that you were all WRONG, and you owe them an apology. I don't expect you'll actually man-up and deliver one, but that it is owed is enough.
Post a Comment