By Ben Wagner
In her recent Korea Times article, ``I am an English speaker, too,” Ms. Ahn Hye-jeong, a Monash University English instructor and a doctoral candidate, presents a compelling argument against the idealization of ``native speaker” teachers of English.
She argues that the ``chauvinistic views” and ``native speaker-ism mindset” of Korean policymakers has resulted in the promulgation of a dubious criterion whereby ``Korean English speakers, are always measured against the standard of a native English speaker and found to be ``incomplete” and ``deficient.”
I agree and find Ahn’s article especially timely as the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) has recently issued an important opinion finding ``unreasonable discrimination” where a Korean-American English teacher was paid less by his employer because of his race.
Being raised in the U.S. and speaking English as his native language wasn’t enough to overcome being perceived as ``‘incomplete” and ``deficient” ― in the eyes of his employer, he simply didn’t look like a native speaker.
The Korean word for native speaker is ``woneomin.” The NHRCK devotes an entire section of its opinion to discussing the dictionary definition of woneomin because of its awareness that the popular understanding of this word includes a racial element that is not present in the dictionary.
For Koreans, as linguistics professor Joseph Sung-Yul Park has explained, ``ethno-racial heritage is often treated as if it is a sufficient explanation for one’s competence in a language,” meaning that ``the linguistic legitimacy reflected in labels such as ‘native speaker’” results from a belief in an ``essential connection with the speakers’ given ethno-national identity.”
This view, explains Prof. Park, stems from the Korean concept of ``danil minjok (one people, or racial homogeneity),” which presents an ``image of the Korean people united through, among other things, a common Korean language.”
Thus, while Koreans consider it ``utterly unremarkable for an ethnic Korean to speak fluent Korean and highly unusual or even scandalous if she cannot,” native English-speaking ethnic Koreans are rarely considered woneomin.
In Korea, English ``native speakers” are expected to look the part, with their racial features acting as guarantees of linguistic competence. Images of blonde-haired blue-eyed native English speaking teachers are frequently promoted in advertising campaigns by private English language academies and by the government.
A large placard posted throughout Seoul by the city government featured the picture of a young white woman with bright blonde hair and blue eyes standing with two Korean children in front of a classroom with a caption that read: ``the city of Seoul provides native speakers.”
Even the display panel ``face” of ``Engky,” the celebrated English teaching robot, displays the same image of a blonde-haired blue-eyed woman as symbol of linguistic competence ― even when the machine is being remotely operated by a Filipino English teacher.
In a society where race serves as an indicator of linguistic competence, opportunities for Korean English teachers only tend to open up where their race acts as a guarantor of their ethical competence since the same racial bias that accords non-Koreans special status as native speakers also marks them as morally suspect.
President Park Nahm-sheik of the International Graduate School of English has said that ``if we need native English speakers, it would be better inviting young ethnic Koreans” because non-Korean teachers ``don’t have much affection toward our children” and ``often cause problems.”
A private English language academy proudly advertised the fact that they did not employ native speakers because they may be ``drug users, homosexuals, ex-convicts, AIDS patients, or sex offenders.”
President Song Kwang-yong of Seoul National University of Education has argued that native speakers should be replaced with Korean English teachers as soon as possible and was quoted by The Korea Times as saying that ``native speakers are not qualified” because they are ``involved in sexual harassment and drugs.”
Incheon Office of Education supervisor Koo Young-sun has similarly emphasized that ``speaking English fluently doesn’t necessarily mean [native speakers] can teach” because ``some of them are not ethically qualified to teach children.”
The same racial bias that marks non-Korean teachers as potential threats to children has led the government to impose AIDS and drugs checks on these teachers while exempting their Korean colleagues, even when these colleagues share the same nationality.
The Korea Times contributor Jason Lim called the rule ``unjustifiable,” explaining that it ``discriminates based on ethnic origin by assuming that a Korean-American English teacher is less of a threat to a Korean child than a white-American English teacher just because his or her parents happened to be Korean”.
As Ahn rightly points out, the ``chauvinistic views” and ``native speaker-ism mindset” of Korean policymakers has resulted in a discriminatory workplace environment where teachers are often found ``incomplete” and ``deficient.” The Korean-American NHRCK complainant was found linguistically incomplete and deficient because of his race and paid less, while his non-Korean colleagues were found ethically incomplete and deficient because of their race and subject to AIDS and drug tests.
Until Korea is prepared to reevaluate its racial worldview, unreasonable discrimination will continue and both Korean and non-Korean English teachers will wrongfully be found ``incomplete” and ``deficient.”
Benjamin Wagner is a professor of law at Kyung Hee University Law School, a Center for International Human Rights research fellow, and an American attorney. He can be reached at khu.lawschool@gmail.com.