Multiculturalism in Korea

Hello, this is my first post on this blog. My name is itissaid. I have commented a bit on Monster Island and a few other Korean blogs. I have never really felt motivated to write at length about Korea, but was prompted by a certain post on the Korean blogosphere that I felt needed to be addressed.

There is a post by a blogger arguing for the multiculturalization of Korea. Apparently, the author feels that Korea should become multicultural because that is what is for its "own good". But based on his overblown "I know better than you, Korea" tone and the flimsy arguments that he makes in favor of this claim, one can see that it is not really an argument, but a rant motivated by pure self-interest.

Now, I am certainly in favor of Korea recruiting foreign professionals where they fill a need that cannot be adequately addressed by the current Korean workforce. However, to say that Korea MUST be multicultural and diverse to secure top talent is a bit much when there is a high number of college graduates WITHIN Korea, some of whom do not have jobs, as well as other alternate solutions to increasing the competitiveness of the Korean workforce like improving education, increasing opportunities for women, etc.

"In fact, it's ridiculous to think how the Korean media has managed to make the most highly-educated sector of the population from the world's most developed economies and make them into social monsters. Does this make any sense?"

To characterize teachers who are hired primarily for their native language skills and a bachelor's degree (whether related to English education or not) as making up the "most highly-educated sector of the population from the world's most developed economies" is just disingenuous. If Michael truly has the experience working in Korean schools that he claims, he would know this. And he DOES know this, but chose to be disingenuous to support his own argument that Koreans are missing out on a highly talented foreign workforce.

"The foreign blogging community translates almost all the articles written about us, we pass them around, and we are starting to wonder not only why the Korean media seems to hate us so much, but how supposed journalists can continue to make up a tidal wave of rumors and lies about us."

This is the problem with the author and other bloggers like himself. He gets his "news" from second-hand sources and takes them as fully representative of the Korean media. If he actually read the media in full, not just disparate articles here and there, he would notice that they actually write many positive stories about the foreign community, including English teachers. There are negative articles as to be expected about ANY subject, but he makes it seem that that's all they cover.

"There are isolated and statistically insignificant incidents, but the socially irresponsible, unethical, and completely unprofessional Korean media continues to feed the flames of panic through its sensationalistic headlines and stories."

Perhaps the author can take a bit of his own advice and not be so sensationalistic and inflammatory in his own rants about Korea. Regardless of how much experience he has teaching in Korean schools and being educated at the higher institutions of the U.S., he does not show the open-minded objectivity and analysis that he always skewers the Korean media for.

"Koreans know very well how little confirmation happens to resumes, so people fake them. They trust people recommended by a friend, or the powerful person who is supporting them, or simply are too lazy to pick up the phone (or go to the school web site) and simply confirm the information. What is more embarrassing than the "fake degree problem" is the fake that Korean society can even HAVE such a problem. And to the extent that a few unscrupulous foreigners know how Korea works, or some kyopos who know it even better, get away with living life as a "Harvard business school graduate" for years -- it's a fault of a system that doesn't even do the basic checks that an American McDonald's would do on a kid applying for his first part-time job as a high school student. There will always be unscrupulous people, anywhere, just as there will always be foxes waiting outside the hen house gate. So, who's to blame if the foxes all know the lazy farmer never closes the hen house gate at night? Foxes will do what foxes do. The lazy farmer is stupid for blaming the foxes, hunting them down with guns and dogs, etc. Simply close your damned hen house."

I would say that it is the fault of the lazy farmer as well as the foxes, but according to Michael, foreigners are never to blame for any wrong the commit toward Koreans. It's ALWAYS the fault of Koreans. ALWAYS.

"The increasing size of the applicant pool is sending the best, most highly-qualified crops of foreign teachers there has ever been. Any MBA grad or captain of industry will tell you what common sense should have already: a larger applicant pool means higher quality, in the end. "

He cites one example of someone from the English department at Berkeley to support his case as well as the competitive job market in the U.S. He promotes the fallacy that more competition means a higher quality of applicants. Not necessarily true in the absolute sense or even the relative sense. Unless he can show examples of people from the better universities applying to Korean teaching jobs in greater numbers, I don't buy it.

"Because of sensationalist stories by your major television networks on "Foreign Male Sexual Predators" and continued news emphasis on the actions of an errant few, Korean immigration rules have changed to require HIV tests for getting a teaching visa (which even Ban Ki Moon has agreed is both unconditional and illegal, according to Korean laws), a criminal background check to supposedly prevent "foreign sex offenders" from entering the country (when there are no confirmed cases of such foreigners actually having committed any said crimes, and the biggest problem is that most sex offenders in ANY country generally have no criminal record, a major problem in general), and other silly rules, such as having to have a "pre-interview" at a Korean consulate to teach at a silly hagwon (do you know how large the US is and that I would have to take a plane to the nearest Korean consulate, four states over?), or having to not only leave the country when changing one's visa, but having to return to one's ORIGINAL country every time one even RENEWS a visa?"

I highly doubt that Korean media coverage is the sole reason why there are stricter regulations for the hiring of English teachers. I'm sure that the Korean government like other governments took notice of the media coverage, but ultimately came to their own conclusion based on their own internal data. Unless the author has proof that such stories influenced such changes, he has no argument. If Michael truly did believe in doing what is right for Korea, he would not criticize the use of criminal background checks to screen out high-risk candidates. Apparently, just a few crimes from a large pool of foreigners is enough to justify the non-protection of children. The U.S. school system as well as other industries in the country do criminal checks for any applicant who will work around children. But Michael ignores that and singles out Korea for his own invective. As far as interviewing at the Korean consulate, it has come to this point unfortunately for all involved, the Korean government, the teachers, the schools. Why? Because hakwons have not done a good job of screening out negative candidates and so there have been far too many bad apples in the bunch whether or not they constitute a majority of English teachers. As far as his comment about returning to one's country to renew a visa, I have never heard of it, but if that is the case now, then it is not necessary and is probably the only point I agree with Michael on.

"Does the Korean public even know about these rules, or what they mean in reality? It means that foreigners become slaves to bag hagwon owners and school vice-principals. If we don't get paid, our contract is broken, or anything happens to us, we have no power. If we quit, we not only have to leave the country, we have to return to our home country immediately. In order to move out of bad hagwon A, over to next-door good hagwon B, I would have to go back to the US, re-apply for a visa, and spend thousands of dollars and months waiting for the process to finish."

Well, just like any employment visa whether in the U.S. or Korea, this visa is contingent on employment with the designated employer as it is the school that is the sponsor. The Korean government allowed you to enter for the purpose of working at school "A". They did not give you permission for anything else. So of course, if you QUIT, then you should leave Korea. What Michael fails to mention is that one has the ability to apply for other jobs BEFORE giving one's notice and leaving. But it's always "evil" Korea's fault. English teachers have NO RESPONSIBILITY. It's always about the "big, bad" Korean government.

"And hasn't it occurred to the media that the very REASON one finds some teachers working on illegal visas or with fake degrees or no qualifications is because many bad Korean hagwons actually WANT that kind of worker? I personally know of several people who had not finished college (but no, they are not "bad" people) but were working in hagwons, anyway, while students over the summer. They're cheaper and can't complain. Many hagwon owners simply want warm bodies -- and some actually prefer workers they can control. Protecting workers by separating the work and residency visas would put power back in the hands of the people who can vote with their feet, and allow the market to collect itself."

And it's never the fault of such teachers for not having such qualifications or degrees.

"I myself could never have easily worked at so many universities, alternative schools, NGO's, and countless other little jobs, if I hadn't been on the F-4 visa. Why do we treat non-Korean-descent foreigners any differently? Do we kyopos magically not have criminal records? Are we impervious to HIV and AIDS? Couldn't we molest children if we wanted to? Has the Korean job market fallen apart because of us, who have been providing the glue that keeps your culture industry together, not to mention the entertainment industry and countless other small places in the economy?"

Because it's the right of the Korean government to make its own policies on who to admit into the country. Many countries treat children of citizens and heritage applicants differently from other foreigners, including the U.S. which allows family members to sponsor other family members for a resident visa.

"Some close-minded people might say, "Well, America's immigration policies are strict. So why shouldn't ours be?" The answer is simple. The US needs to be, can afford to be strict. Because everyone in the world is trying to live there. And, strict though they are, America's immigration policies are fairly liberal, which has not always been true. Look at Koreans' contributions to the US, made possible only because of the 1965 Immigration Act, which finally stopped discriminating against Asians, Africans, and Eastern Europeans. Korean-Americans sit in some of the government's highest positions, are part of Hollywood, are doctors, professors, lawyers, schoolteachers, soldiers, nurses, and many other things. A Korean-American invented the touch-screen system that Apple first mass marketed and that now, the world uses."

I find it so convenient that Michael touts the creativity of Koreans in the U.S. when he has NEVER done so on his blog, always lambasting them for a lack of creativity. So when it is convenient for him to cite Koreans as creative, he will do so. He is a very disingenuous, pseudo intellectual blogger.

"As any economist knows, a small country can only go so far without opening its borders to trade and competition. The same is true for the "idea economy," which requires new thinking, new energy, new people. Right now, I fear for the future of the Korean "idea economy" and the nation in general, over the next 10 years."

I would like to see some evidence that Korea is not opening its borders to trade and competition. What do you call the FTA's with Europe and the U.S.? What do you call the many American chains/brands in Korea? Last time I heard, TESCO was a British company and is doing quite well WITHOUT Samsung.

"We could be a valuable human and economic resource. Now, the Korean image has become one such that foreigners are becoming more interested in coming here, in learning more about life here, in living here. But the message we get, in reality, is "WE DON'T WANT YOU TO STAY. You can visit, you can give us new foods, and maybe teach English for a year or so. BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU AMONG US."

It is the right of every country to decide who gets to enter within their borders. What gives foreigners the right to demand entry/residence in a certain country?

Whatever Korea needs, I'm sure the Korean government is in a better situation to decide than an irate blogger who has taught at a handful of schools and despite his high level of education, does not judge his subjects with an even-handed objectivity that one would expect from someone with those qualifications.

"Unfortunately, that's the message that's starting to get out now. As a foreigner, as a member of many educational communities, as a member of the 국가브랜드위원회, but also as a simply an objective citizen observer who actually wants to see Korea go in the right direction, I implore you to demand higher standards from your media, to stop being so ready to believe the worst about people, to stop emphasizing only the most negative, threatening aspects of anything new."

Michael should start taking his own advice toward Korea.