Education and Employment Status: Why JALT Should Take Interest in the Issues

Arudou Debito (ne David Aldwinckle)

Hokkaido Information University

JALT has generally taken a hands-off approach towards employment issues. As seen at the January 2001 Executive Board Meeting, some members strongly believe JALT should take no stance whatsoever on the subject of contract employment or unfair dismissals, as it is, in paraphrase, either "unrelated to language teaching or pedagogy" or "too political for JALT's new non-profit organization (NPO) status." However, I argue that there is a very real problem out there, and by not doing more, JALT is doing a disservice to its members and missing opportunities.

What Problem?

Employment in Japan for non-Japanese academics and educators has been problematic for over a century. Japan has a long history of bringing in "foreign instructors" (gaikokujin kyoushi) as temporary imparters of overseas information. While Japanese enjoyed tenure from day one of their hiring, their foreign counterparts specifically received one-year contracts (under a system called ninkisei). It was not until 1982 when a second category, "foreign staff" (gaikokujin kyouin), was created with three years between contract renewals. This bifurcated system has created a job market where full-time Japanese academics enjoy lifetime employment, while foreigners can be dismissed -- through contract non-renewal -- for any reason (such as age, gender, ideological activism, disagreement with supervisor, or simply as a cost-cutting measure). Clearly the potential for employment abuse exists, but over the past decade, as schools saw the need to downsize with the decreasing student population, the Ministry of Education (MoE) also played a part in encouraging this system. Through administrative guidance in 1992-94, MoE advised all national universities (kokuritsu daigaku) to dismiss their more senior foreign faculty (i.e., over the age of 35), resulting in 80% of said employees receiving pink slips. In 1997, with the passage of the Sentaku Ninkisei Law, contract employment became an option for Japanese citizens as well, although protest from faculty has prevented most universities from implementing it. The fact still stands that to this day, almost all full-time Japanese academics are in tenured positions, while most full-time foreigners are in contracted, non-tenure track positions, even though all universities were enabled to offer tenure to foreigners as far back as 1982, and even more clearly in 1997.

Essentially, what is wrong with contract employment, when visiting professorships are gaining ground in overseas universities? At least 10 things:

1. It is discriminatory since the sole criterion for qualification for a contracted post is nationality, not qualification (by definition of the position title), so it is not the same as visiting professorships in the West.
2. It limits educator opportunity for advancement since few universities as yet offer "up-or-out" tenure-track posts or procedures.
3. It is humiliating and disrespectful since it draws lines between academic colleagues regardless of ability, and often leaves both sides resigned to believing that temporary status for foreigners in Japan is normal and deserved.
4. It is self-perpetuating in terms of educator quality and mindset since schools see few PhDs applying for their non-permanent posts, and then conclude that foreigners only want temporary positions.
5. It is financially unequal since many of these contracted positions, even if some have higher monthly wages than some tenured positions, do not include bonuses (which may amount to 1/3 of annual salary).
6. It is unstable and not conducive to long-term employment since people cannot expect lifetime renewals. This affects foreigners' ability to settle, for example, their qualifications for loans to buy a house.
7. It is inhumane since many educators invest decades of their lives in an institution, only to be dismissed before retirement, which has a serious effect on pension payments.
8. It is detrimental to the advancement of scientific research since energy which could be invested in research must go to new job searches.
9. It impinges upon intellectual freedom since only those on contracts can be fired if they speak their mind (which is why tenure exists, "so a Baptist dean doesn't fire all the Methodists," as someone once famously said).
10. It is systematically abusive. With the MoE's blanket control over Japanese university curriculum, hiring, grants, and in many cases finances, it is clear that the MoE could enforce (and has in the past) a national policy for keeping foreigners disenfranchised and disposable. Few, if any, other industrially developed countries have an educational system so fully controlled by a single governmental ministry.

In sum, there is a very real problem here, one which educators should know about before and after they enter Japan's job market. If JALT is indeed an academic organization concerned for the well-being of its members and the advancement of professional language teaching, can it continue to avoid taking a stance despite the problems mentioned above?

Why Should JALT Get Involved?

JALT members are the largest group of language teachers in Japan, and thus JALT has a vested interest in serving those members and promoting educational quality within Japan. Its mission is to promote excellence and professionalism in language teaching. As argued above, ninkisei has been highly detrimental not only to the individual but to the industry, and people should be fully advised about the pitfalls in this job market. Many people come over here believing that foreigners cannot fill tenured posts, simply because their employer insists that there are legal problems with granting them (civil servants, visa restrictions, etc.). These are known to be falsehoods and JALT should advise interested people of this -- not only so they can choose the better jobs, but also to encourage universities to change their ways by enabling the fairer universities to receive more job applicants.

The point is that, despite what some may say, employment status is in fact a matter of pedagogy. Without stable positions, where educators can research and educate to their fullest potential, pedagogy suffers. Even under JALT's new NPO status, the alleged aversion to involvement in political activity is moot, because: a) NPOs carry out similar activities all the time -- that is their job by design as groups of concerned activist citizens; and b) other organizations, such as TESOL, are quite comfortable in their public role as being a voice of concern and a publicizer of problems. JALT would do nothing inordinate by helping out.

What Can JALT Do to Help?

Critics may decry, "JALT is not a labor union, so leave it out." I feel few of those people know much about labor unions. I am not proposing here that JALT call for general strikes, engage in collective bargaining with employer and employee, or even lobby the MoE. However, JALT presidents, past and present, have written letters of disapproval on specific cases, and the fact they have felt compelled to do so either by conscience or mandate shows how compelling the problems are. At this juncture, what JALT can do is to:

1. Create a "minimum employment standards" list for public display.
2. Create a job center which lists universities which do or do not meet these standards.
3. Entrust the Standing Committee on Employment Practices (SCOEP) with maintaining this list (see JALT SCOEP, 2001).
4. Formally empower the JALT President with the mandate to make public statements (ostensibly, it already exists, but it is unnecessarily controversial) on specific cases (see JALT, 1997).
5. Lay the debate to rest at last: Formally state that employment issues also fall under the purview of JALT's mission, and JALT will assist members in finding better employment.

JALT's membership is falling year upon year: 2500 and still slowly dropping. With my position as an activist within JALT, I get numerous messages saying things like "JALT's do-nothingness really turned me off. Glad you are doing something about it." Demand exists, so acting as an information source may in fact increase JALT's appeal. Japan's job market is hardly improving for educators. JALT should help us help it along.

References

JALT. (1997). Official stance on discriminatory employment practices. [Electronic version]. Available: <www.debito.org/JALTonsabetsu.html>.

JALT SCOEP. (2001). Recommendation 2001 (submitted at JALT EBM January 27, 2001). [Electronic version]. Available: <www.debito.org/SCOEPrecommendation2001.html>.

Further Reading

Aldwinckle, D. (2001). Blacklist and greenlist of Japanese universities. [Electronic text]. Available: <www.debito.org/blacklist.html>.

Aldwinckle, D. (1999). 10+ Questions for your next university employer. The Language Teacher, 23(7), 14-16. Electronic version also available: <www.debito.org/univquestions.html#questions>.

Fox, M. H. (2001). Employment discrimination, foreign women, and SCOEP. The Language Teacher, 25(5), 14-15.

Fox, M. H., Shiozawa, T., & Aldwinckle, D. (1999). A new system of university tenure, remedy or disease? The Language Teacher, 23(8), 13-15,18.

Hall, I. (1998). Cartels of the mind. New York: Norton.