Bahk Eun-ji has been with The Korea Times since 2012, building a career across multiple desks. She began at the Business Desk, where she conducted in-depth interviews with key figures in Korea's corporate world. Later, she moved to the Politics & City Desk, focusing on education policy and social affairs. She later served as team leader of the digital content team, leading curation efforts on the newspaper’s homepage and reshaping print stories for social media audiences to enhance digital reach. Now back on the Politics Desk, she covers the National Assembly and the Ministry of National Defense, with a renewed focus on political developments.
Constitutional court rules in support of students' rights regulations
By Bahk Eun-ji
Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education's regulations on students' human rights, which ban discrimination and hate speech against homosexuality or specific religions, do not violate the Constitution, the Constitutional Court ruled Monday.
Gettyimagesbank
By Bahk Eun-ji
The nine-member court ruled unanimously on the constitutionality of the regulations following a petition from teachers and parents at a Christian school.
The education office's regulations have been at the center of a controversy between progressive and conservative groups.
The petitioners took issue with a clause that states that school principals, teachers and students should not infringe on others' human rights by expressing hatred and discrimination based on an individual's gender, religion or sexual orientation.
The petitioners said the clause prevented Christians from denouncing homosexuality ― which they claim is against their religious and biblical values ― and thus infringed on their freedom of expression.
“Such hate expressions infringe on an individual's and a minority's dignity as humans and deny the value of specific groups. So banning them are necessary to protect the dignity guaranteed by the Constitution,” the court said.
It said such expressions, especially made toward students who were growing physically and mentally, could damage their abilities in these areas and have negative consequences on their personalities.
“The court concluded that the public interest achieved through the ordinance is much larger and more important than the petitioners' freedom of expression,” it said.