By Adam Walsh

A few months ago I decided that I would once again be extending my E-2 visa to teach in Korea. I was aware that the visa regulations had changed and was perfectly content to go through whatever new process the immigration officials threw at me.

The first of the new regulations, a criminal background check, made complete sense to me. In my eyes, anyone working with children should be able to prove that they have a criminally untainted past. It is about time the Korean government started using some due diligence when it comes to hiring foreign teachers.

Everything was fine until I started to dwell on having to get an AIDS test. I wondered why the background check was not enough. So, I asked a professor friend of mine what he thought about having to get the test and he replied, ``I'm on an E-1; I don't need to get tested.''

Curious as to who this rule actually applies to, I decided to phone immigration. After being bounced around a bit from office to office, I was finally put through to a Mr. Choi who, albeit rather rudely, answered my questions.

I managed to discover that it is only E-2 and E-6 visas that require the test. When I asked why this was the case, he informed me that it was to protect the children. He then said that I could leave the country if I wanted or phone my embassy.

After Mr. Choi hung up on me, I thought some more about the fairness of the rule. The E-6 visa is for entertainers, not teachers. I don't understand the similarities that would group both the E-2 and E-6 visas together.

Every country has its own visa regulations and foreigners obviously have to follow them. However, I have a hard time accepting a rule that is not fair across the board. If all teachers were forced to submit to the test, I would still disagree but would not complain because it would apply to all teachers equally.

The fact that Koreans are traveling as much as Westerners these days should also be taken into consideration when debating which teachers should be tested.

As for children catching AIDS from a teacher, I find the idea to be preposterous. The underlying insinuations of this rule are offensive at best. There are so many other worries that come to mind when thinking about possible harm that can come to children at the hands of a teacher.

Realistically speaking I do not see how AIDS can be a legitimate concern. If it is and I am wrong, I would like to see some statistics showing the risk. If I am right, get rid of the AIDS test as it is unnecessary.

Adam Walsh is an English instructor and freelance journalist in Seoul. He can be reached at adamwalsh@gmail.com.