ED When political hatred enters the classroom

Condolence wreaths are placed in front of Paichai High School in Gangdong District, Seoul, Wednesday. Some members of the school’s baseball team sparked public outrage after chanting phrases such as “Let’s go to Starbucks” and “Tank Day” during a game against Gwangju Jeil High School at Mokdong Stadium in Seoul, Monday. The chants recall a recent controversy involving Starbucks Korea, which earlier this year faced backlash for promoting a tumbler discount event on May 18, the anniversary of the 1980 Gwangju Democratic Uprising, with the slogan “5.18 Tank Day.” Yonhap

Schools should be places where young people learn to think critically, engage respectfully with differing opinions and develop the habits of democratic citizenship. They should never become arenas where political hostility and ideological contempt are normalized.

Yet a recent survey of Korean teachers suggests that precisely such a transformation is taking place — and that the consequences extend far beyond the classroom.

According to a survey conducted by the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union, nearly nine in 10 teachers believe that politically charged hate speech in schools has become a serious problem. Additionally, four out of five reported frequently witnessing students using such language, while more than 70 percent said the phenomenon had intensified following the political turmoil that erupted in December 2024. The expressions cited range from insults directed at current and former presidents to xenophobic rhetoric, misogynistic slurs, historical distortions and disparaging remarks targeting minorities.

Although the survey reflects teachers' perceptions rather than a comprehensive national census, its findings deserve careful attention. Teachers are on the front lines of students' intellectual and moral development. When such a broad consensus emerges among those who spend every day in classrooms, it points to a trend that society cannot afford to dismiss.

The controversy surrounding the so-called "Starbucks chant" at a recent high school baseball tournament underscores this concern. What should have been a celebration of school sports instead became embroiled in political symbolism and ideological messaging. Whether intended as humor, provocation or simple imitation, the incident demonstrated how political slogans and coded expressions increasingly spill over into the lives of adolescents. The boundary between adult political conflict and youthful social interaction is becoming dangerously blurred.

The problem is not that students hold political opinions. In any healthy democracy, young people should be encouraged to develop their own views and to debate public issues with curiosity and confidence. The greater danger lies in the replacement of reasoned disagreement with ridicule, stereotypes and hatred. Democracy flourishes through disagreement conducted with mutual respect. It begins to erode when opponents are reduced to caricatures and contempt replaces dialogue.

The digital environment has accelerated this trend. Many students spend countless hours on social media platforms and video-sharing sites, where algorithms reward sensationalism, outrage and emotional polarization. Some politically driven content creators — particularly those operating on the ideological extremes — package complex political issues into emotionally charged narratives that portray compromise as betrayal and opponents as enemies. Adolescents, whose critical faculties are still developing, are especially vulnerable to repeated exposure to such content. What begins as entertainment can gradually shape political identity, reinforce ideological bias and normalize increasingly hostile forms of expression.

This is not a challenge confined to one political camp. Extremism, whether on the far right or the far left, feeds on the same impulse: to divide society into irreconcilable camps and to substitute ideological loyalty for independent thought. Schools should resist every form of political radicalization, regardless of its source. Their mission is not to cultivate ideological conformity but to nurture informed, thoughtful and responsible citizens capable of evaluating competing arguments on their merits.

Equally troubling is the finding that many teachers feel ill-equipped to respond. They cite uncertainty over appropriate intervention, concerns about maintaining political neutrality and fears of complaints or retaliation from parents. Such hesitation is understandable, but it also reveals a significant policy gap. Educators cannot be expected to address increasingly complex political and social challenges without clear guidance and institutional support.

The government and education authorities should therefore treat this issue not simply as a matter of classroom discipline but as a national civic education priority. Schools need practical guidance for addressing hate speech, stronger media literacy education and a curriculum that emphasizes critical thinking, constitutional values and respectful democratic discourse. Students must learn that freedom of expression carries responsibilities and that holding political beliefs is fundamentally different from demeaning others or promoting prejudice.

Ultimately, the language heard in classrooms reflects the society adults have created. When public discourse becomes saturated with hostility, conspiracy theories and performative outrage, it is hardly surprising that children begin to imitate the same behavior. If Korea hopes to preserve a healthy democracy, it must ensure that its young people inherit not a culture of political animosity but one of intellectual openness, fairness and mutual respect.

The next generation will shape the nation's future. They deserve an educational environment that equips them not merely to choose political sides, but to think independently, disagree civilly and build a society in which justice, reason and social cohesion prevail over hatred and division.