

175

Whither Institutionalized
Human Rights Education?
Review of the Japanese Experience
Mariko Akuzawa

S

ince the end of the Cold War, many governments in Asia-Pacific started institutionalizing human rights education. One hundred seventy one countries
had a consensus at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 over theStates’ duty to ensure that education strengthens the respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms, which led to the adoption of the United Nations Decadefor Human Rights Education (1995 -2004).
their rights; teaching of rights makes students
become too critical towards authorities. The
fundamental question is whether an educationthat does not teach rights is considered humanrights education or not.
Based on such critical perspective, I discuss
the controversial position of schools in promoting human rights education in the Asian context, and how it limits human rights educationin schools. Second, I focus on the Japanesecontext of human rights education, and clarify
how the history of Dowa Education influenced
the re-institutionalization of Japanese humanrights education, starting from late 1990s. In
Japan, human rights education is not a new
development in post-Cold-War era due to thehistory of education to combat Buraku discrimination called Dowa Education that started
in the 1950s. I explain how such experiencestrengthened current human rights education.
At the same time, I also examine how Japanesehuman rights education has narrowed its scopein the process of re-institutionalization by new
legislations, despite the active involvement ofcivil society.

Since then, many countries started to provide policy support to human rights education
through laws, national action plans, administrative orders, and school curriculums. However, mere institutionalization of human rights
education is not enough progress. Careful andcontinuous monitoring of government support
for human rights education is required becauseof the paradoxical nature of institutionalized
human rights education.
Human rights education in schools on one
hand has great possibilities for facilitating changes in society since schools cover a significant
portion of the population (especially throughthe compulsory education). On the other hand,formal education is a “state enterprise” for thepeople. Formal education is highly centralized
in most countries, with the curriculum understate control. There is therefore a great possibility that the authorities may make their own
interpretation of human rights education. One
such example is the avoidance of the teaching ofrights and the emphasis on duties and responsibilities in schools. Various excuses are given suchas: children are not mature enough to exercise
175

176  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

Schools as focal point for human rights
education
In many countries in the Asia-Pacific, institutionalization of human rights education was partof the democratization process, an expression ofdetermination not to repeat the massive humanrights violations of past dictatorial regimes. It
was then first designed at two levels: one wasfor the people to know their rights for theirown protection from possible violations; theother was for those in authority, especially themembers of the law enforcement agencies, notto violate the rights of the people.1 But such victim (people)-versus-violator (officers in authority) model was too limited as it was based on
negative perspective on the purpose of humanrights education (not to violate, and not to haverights violated). The model was re-organized
to promote positive perspectives in order toempower rights-holders (people) to meaningfully participate in democratic processes, and to
make duty-bearers (officers in authority) to be
more accountable to the people.
The schools constitute one of the mostpowerful focal points on the education of
the people, the rights-holders. Schools covera large segment of the population and large
geographical areas of the country through the
public school system. They also directly influence young generations, the future main players in society. Finally, schools and teachers aretrusted and respected in the communities, andthus can change the negative attitude amongpeople towards human rights.2 With all this, any
institutionalization of human rights education
most likely starts from schools.

fully participate in the democratic discourseand decision-making processes. However such
essential elements of human rights education do
not easily fit the schools, because teachers andschool administrators fear that such approach
may trigger disobedience and selfishness among
students, or that knowing rights may makethem too critical toward those in authority.
As a result, human rights education in schools
carefully avoids rights-based approach and isoften biased towards moral and values approach,or replaced by simple study of constitutional
provisions without making any link with therights of students. Schools then become theplace where different perspectives of humanrights between the state and the civil society
confront each other.
Human rights education in Japanese schools
is not an exception. It has gradually been
inclined to emphasizing morals and values,
while the people’s understanding of humanrights remains rhetorical and vague. There is
now even a growing negative attitude towards
human rights. In my experience as a trainer,
during the workshops, when teachers andpeople were asked to define human rights intheir own words, they usually cited such values
as “kindness”, “sympathy”, or “being good tofriends”, and seldom referred to concrete rights
in the Constitution or in international humanrights conventions. Some even refused to give
answers, saying that the emphasis on rights
invokes the selfishness of the young people andinvites confusion. Responses were therefore
either very vague or negative.

Selective teaching of rights: right toprotection but not to partici pation
Paradox in human rights education inschools
Human rights education, as a driving force
as well as an outcome of democratization
movement, is for individual and community
empowerment in order for them to meaning-

Avoidance of teaching rights is also related
to the teachers’ and school administrators’ views
about children - they are immature, inexperienced, and not ready to make their own decision
without guidance of seniors who lead them tothe right direction. Such views about children

Whither Insitutionalized Human Rights Education? Review of the Japanese Experience  177

are reflected in the teaching of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in schools.
Although CRC covers the four main aspects ofchild rights (the right to survive, the right to develop, the right to be protected from harm, andthe right to participate), the right to participate
is likely to be omitted in the teaching.
When CRC was ratified in 1994, Japan’s
Vice-Minister of Education made an announcement that this covenant was basically meant forchildren in developing countries, and the rightto participation principle was just a generalidea that does not need to be strictly applied inJapanese schools.
It is also an interesting fact that among themore than forty local governments (prefectures,cities and municipalities) that adopted local ordinances related to child rights in Japan, only alimited number of them are comprehensive childrights ordinances.3 Majority of them selectively
incorporated rights: for example, some only
emphasize the rights to protection (from abuse,crimes, etc.), or rights to healthy environment
for child development. The right to participate
is mostly avoided.
This situation is not peculiar to Japan, as
the same experience is seen in other countries
in Asia. (HURIGHTS OSAKA, 2004).

Nationalism in human rights education
Another concern is the growing emphasis on
nationalism in education. Under intensifying
global competitiveness and feeling of insecurity
among people, nationalism is getting stronger
support from the general public in many countries. Teaching nationalism in countries once
under colonial rule is quite often identified
with teaching of right to national independence
and self-determination, thus it is treated as partof human rights education. In other cases, in
multicultural and multiracial societies, nationalism is upheld as the symbol of integration, andnationalism is treated as an important elementof citizenship. However, can nationalism becompatible with institutionalized human rights
education? Teaching nationalism means supporting the demand for loyalty of the people
to the government, while opening the space forsuppressing people’ critical perspectives toward
government.
In Japan, the concept of nationalism has
been critically viewed since the end of WorldWar II because pre-war Japanese educationindoctrinated the people on nationalism andblind patriotism that led them into war. Dueto this, the suggestion to incorporate the teaching of nationalism into the recent revision of
The Fundamental Law of Education was hotly
debated. The revision of the law, enacted in
December 2006,4 includes provisions that callfor cultivating “an attitude of autonomous participation in building society and contributing
to its development on the basis of a public-oriented mind” as well as “an attitude that respects
tradition and culture and love of the national
homeland that has fostered them.” Also, therevised law provides for more direct state control
on education.
Emphasis on nationalism usually goeswith emphasis on morals and values, but not
on rights. Some say that values are harmless.
However, vague statement of values in laws
and government policies allows governments
to interpret values as they see fit, and to use
moral and values education as means to teacha particular ideology or thought.
Human rights may be in the same situation.
If the people do not have the proper understanding of rights, or if the people’s understanding of
human rights remains rhetorical and vague, there
is always a possibility that human rights education can be manipulated through arbitrary interpretation of rights, selective teaching of rights,
and replacement of human rights with morals,
values and nationalism. And this can all be done
through the institutionalization of human rights
education. Careful and continuous monitoringof human rights education by the civil society istherefore very important and crucial in preventing this situation from happening.

178  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

Re-institutionalization process of humanrights education in Japan
Human rights education in Japan has had
legal support since 2000. It has been facing
common problems of institutionalization ofhuman rights education as in other countries
in the region. But there are specific situations
and contexts that explain additional problems
in Japanese human rights education.

Before human rights education: Dowa
Education
Human rights education in Japan is precededby a long history of Dowa Education - an education aimed at eliminating Buraku discrimination.5 Dowa Education primarily focuses on(1) guaranteeing the right to education of thechildren and people from Buraku communities,and (2) promoting understanding about Buraku problems and anti-discrimination attitude
among the general public.
Concerned teachers in cooperation withparents and communities started Dowa Education after World War II. It was an educational
movement in order to combat deprivation of
the right to education of Buraku children, due
to severe discrimination in schools and poverty
at home. Democracy and equal opportunity
were enshrined in then new Constitution andthe 1947 Fundamental Law of Education,
but they were not realities for many Buraku
children. And the Dowa Education movement
challenged such contradictions in realities anddemanded government initiatives to guarantee
equal educational rights to all.
Responding to the movement, the national and local governments started to initiate
educational policies and support services in the
1950s. The first explicit Ministry of Education(MOE) policy was released in 1952, informing
teacher-training institutions and local boards ofeducation to promote Dowa Education. The

need to educate teachers about human rights
was highlighted by an incident in Kyoto in the
1950s where a newly-employed teacher refused
an assignment to teach in a primary school because it was in a Buraku community.
However discrimination was not limited tothe children and schools. The organized movement of people in Buraku communities started
to call for comprehensive national policies
including improvement of living environmentsof their communities which were in extremely
poor condition due to government neglect,
as well as of government policies on social
welfare, industry, employment and culture. In
response to the movement, the government
finally admitted the state’s responsibility tosolve the Buraku problems. A Cabinet Policy
Council recommended in 1965 to the government the provision of special measures tosolve Buraku problems, which was followed
by a 1969 law that provided special national
budgetary allocation for Buraku projects. The
special laws on the Buraku problems were continuously implemented for thirty-three years,
or until 2002.6
Although Dowa education started as avoluntary act of teachers, the legal framework
on Dowa policies gave it official recognition.
Various educational projects were implemented
under the special laws as parts of the Dowa policies of the government, including the improvement of educational facilities, deployment ofadditional teachers for compensatory educationin schools where children from Buraku communities were enrolled, provision of financial aid
to Buraku students, and support for community activities. In accordance with the national
Dowa policies, many local governments issued
guidelines on Dowa Education and facilitatedadditional support to Buraku children, as wellas support for the teaching of Buraku problems
in schools by issuing curricular materials. With
Dowa education, some components of humanrights education were already institutionalizedin Japan.

Whither Insitutionalized Human Rights Education? Review of the Japanese Experience  179

Human rights education” in 1990s
However, the Dowa policies did not explicitly mention “human rights education,”and human rights components were implicit
in Dowa Education. The government’s explicit
use of “human rights education” started only inthe late 1990s.
The change of terminology from Dowa education to human rights education in government
educational policies was due to the expirationof the Dowa special measures law. However it
was not just a change of terminology. The process should be carefully and critically reviewed
to clarify how the contents of education havebeen gradually changed through the change ofterminology.

1996 recommendation of theGovernment Consultative Council
Before the lapse of the last Dowa special
measures law, there was heated discussion within
the civil society on what future measures should
be adopted to address the Buraku problems. A
government consultative council on policies
for Buraku issues (Consultative Council on Regional Improvement Measures) recommended
to the government in May 1996 new directions
on this matter. It concluded that improvementof physical environment of Buraku communities
was basically completed after thirty-three yearsof support for Buraku projects. Thus the new
directions would address other needs.
The council recommended the terminationof special measures for Buraku people and communities, despite the remaining gaps between
Buraku and non-Buraku communities such as
in education, employment, and industry. The
council suggested to solve such problems under
the general policy framework, and not by positive discrimination policies (since past Buraku
projects aroused “reverse discrimination”7 sentiment among people over the years).
On the other hand, the council stressed theimportance of continuing efforts in educationand information activities as well as in humanrights protection because Buraku discrimination
among the citizens was still persistent particularly in cases of marriage. In its recommendations,the council used “human rights education” and“human rights awareness-raising” in expressing
the need for continuing educational efforts.

Re-organized” Dowa Education
Two months after the council recommendations came out, the Cabinet released its newpolicies on Buraku issues. With regards to education, interestingly, the Cabinet decision was
not only about the continuation of educational
and information activities, but also the “re-organization” of education to eliminate Buraku
discrimination into human rights education,and “to promote such human rights educationin accordance with UN Decade for Human
Rights Education.”
The introduction of “human rights education” by the government invited controversial
debate. Due to the fact that the policy topromote human rights education in Japan was
launched by the government when it terminatedthe policy support to Buraku projects, it was
unfortunately misunderstood even by some ofthe very committed educators and activists that
supported Dowa Education. Seeing humanrights education as the weakening and washingaway of the past efforts of Dowa Education,
they opposed its promotion. The opposition waspartly correct because the new concept “humanrights education” was also used as an excuse to
avoid taking up Buraku discrimination issues in
educational activities by those who have strong“reverse discrimination” sentiment or opposition
to past Dowa policies. It was an unfortunate
restart for human rights education in Japan, but
the responsibility of such confusion rests partly
within the weakness of the civil society, including
educators and activists, that lacked proper understanding of the concepts of human rights.

180  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

1997 National Action Plan
But there were also educators and activists
who supported human rights education andstrategically used the human rights education
framework to take up various human rights
issues and lobby for appropriate policies. The
adoption of The National Action Plan for the UN
Decade for Human Rights Education in 1997 wasa result of such positive commitment. It was
the first comprehensive document on humanrights education in Japan that provided new
support for the implementation of educationand information activities in place of the special
Dowa policies.
One of the features of the Japanese national
action plan was the inclusion of the list of “important issues” to be taken up in education,
which includes problems relating to Buraku
people, women, children, elderly people, persons with disabilities, indigenous Ainu people,
people with HIV/AIDS, people who finishedserving prison term, and foreigners. Due tosuch list, the Japanese national action plan
provided the official bases for continuing support to Dowa Education, as well as educationon other minority issues. As an educator, I also
highly appreciate the inclusion of such list, as
it prevented Japanese human rights educationfrom going into abstract teaching of morals andvalues, and showed the basic principle that human rights education should be connected with,and contribute to, the solution of the problemsof the oppressed.
The national action plan for the UN Decade
however provided only a temporary framework
until 2004, and it did not have any legal binding force.

1996 Law for the Measures for the
Promotion of Human Rights Protection
The call by the civil society (including Dowa
educators and human rights educators) for the
adoption of a national action plan for the UN
Decade was actually coupled with a demand

from the government for stronger support forhuman rights education and for human rights
policies.
Responding to such demands, the government enacted The Law for the Measures for
the Promotion of Human Rights Protection in
December 1996 one year before the national
action plan for the UN Decade was adopted.
But this law was only meant to provide for theestablishment of the Council for Promoting
Human Rights Protection (Council) as the bodywith the authority to discuss and make policy
recommendations both on human rights education and human rights protection. The Council,
formed in 1997, was able to complete its discussions on proposed human rights education
policy recommendations in 1999. It thus appeared that the national action plan for the UN
Decade was meant to be a temporary measure
until the Council adopted policy recommendations on human rights education.
The Law for the Measures for the Promotionof Human Rights Protection has very often been
overlooked, because it was very short (consistsof only four articles with supplementary provisions), and was merely meant to establish andprovide the organizational structure of theCouncil. But a closer look into the its provisions
shows limited and problematic interpretation ofhuman rights education.
One article in the law provides the following:8

In accordance with the Japanese Constitution thatguarantees the enjoyment of fundamental humanrights to all Japanese citizens, the State has theduty to promote policies on education and awareness-raising to cultivate mutual understanding
among Japanese citizens on the idea of respecting
human rights, and to promote policies regarding
relief measures for the victims of human rights
violations. (Article 2. Duty of the State)This article limits human rights education toactivities on promoting “mutual understanding
among Japanese citizens.” Such view of humanWhither Insitutionalized Human Rights Education? Review of the Japanese Experience  181

rights education is based on the premise thathuman rights violations occur only among thepeople (and only among Japanese), and neglects
the basic human rights principle that the state
has the obligation to protect human rights, andconsequently liable for human rights violations
by failing to uphold this obligation. In practice,
the state is a primary violator of the rights of thepeople, and thus human rights in the JapaneseConstitution are addressed to the state that
holds the duty to guarantee those rights to thepeople. The law provides a very distorted notion that people are the violators of “mutual”
rights, and the government has the mission toenlighten them on this view. The article limits
also the scope of human rights education by
failing to mention the issue of violations that
occur between the state and the people. As aresult, this restriction over the scope of humanrights education in the law is reflected in the1999 policy recommendations of the Council
entitled “Basic principles for general promotionof policies on education and awareness-raisingfor promoting mutual understanding among
Japanese citizens on the idea of respecting human rights”. The problematic interpretation ofhuman rights education in the law bears muchof the blame for the changing quality of humanrights education in the country. Since the law
was enacted, human rights education has been
narrowly interpreted as education for building
good relationship among people, or as teachingof the discipline for avoiding conflicts among
them.

2000 human rights education law
The civil society was disappointed about
failure of the Council for Promoting Human
Rights Protection to propose the enactment ofa legislation for human rights education in its
1999 recommendations, despite expectationsof stronger support for human rights educationin view of the expiration of the national planof action for the UN Decade (the only official
document supporting human rights education

at that time) in 2004. Dowa Education andthe human rights education movements again
strongly demanded the enactment of a humanrights education law. Fortunately, the law entitled “The Law on the Promotion of Human Rights
Education and Human Rights Awareness-Raising
was enacted in 2000. Human rights educationin Japan finally gained a strong legal support.
The law stipulates the responsibilities of thenational and local governments and individual
citizens for promoting human rights education,
as well as the necessary measures to be taken by
the government, including formulation of basic
plans, and submission of annual reports to theDiet. It also stated that the government “can”
provide financial support to local governments
to implement human rights education projects.9
In accordance with this law, the government
formulated The Basic Plan for the Promotion of
Human Rights Education and Human Rights
Awareness-Raising (Basic Plan) in 2002, and has
been publishing annual reports (White Paperon Human Rights Education and Human Rights
Awareness-Raising) since 2003.
While these developments are welcomed, thevery ambiguous interpretation of human rights
education in the new law raises again the sameproblem. The law provides:
In this law, human rights education is definedas educational activities aimed at the nurturingof spirit of respecting human rights, and humanrights awareness-raising is defined as public
relations and other awareness-raising activities(excluding human rights education) aimed at
popularizing the idea of respecting human rights
among citizens and deepening their understanding of it. (Article 2. Definition)

To begin with, non-Japanese may find it
awkward to have separate definitions of human rights education and “awareness-raising
activities.” Japanese bureaucratic sectionalism
restricts human rights education to the Ministryof Education (to which education is always narrowly interpreted as school programs), and any
educational and information activities outside

182  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

the schools to the Ministry of Justice. However,
the more serious problem is the ambiguityin the human rights education definition as“educational activities aimed at the nurturing of
spirit of respecting human rights.” This allows
many interpretations of human rights education. It reinforces psychological reductionism
or moral/value-based approach, and weakens
the development of critical and analytical perspective among learners that addresses social
structures and root causes of human rights
violations. The psychological reductionism or
moral/value-based approach is emphasized inJapanese schools as shown in the annual reportsof the government.
Such ambiguity is partly due to the lack ofreference to international human rights instruments that Japan is a state party to. The Japanese
government has the obligation to make people
know the human rights contained in thoseconventions through human rights education.
Some of these instruments clearly provide thegovernment obligation to undertake educational
measures to protect human rights.10 The fundamental problem of this law is the absenceof a clear definition of human rights based oninternational law standard, which in turn affects
the way human rights education is defined.

Ongoing process
The Basic Plan proposed to conduct “research and information gathering activities on
effective teaching practices and materials, andto feedback such information to schools inorder to improve teaching at schools.” MOE
then organized a panel of experts (“Panel on
the Promotion of Human Rights Education in
Schools”) in 2003. Two interim reports havebeen published so far, and the discussions to
finalize them are still ongoing. Researchers andschool administrators who have been supporting Dowa Education and human rights education have been invited to become members of
the Panel.

The panel’s interim reports show traces ofintegration of different eductional approaches- cognitive and skill-based, moral and legal, andpsychological and social-structural. The reports
emphasize the importance of nurturing the‘sense of human rights’ on one hand, and theimportance of intellectual and legal understanding of human rights, as well as the acquisition ofskills, on the other. However the panel is limited
by its mandate to discuss “effective teachingpractices and materials” under the Basic Plan.
It does not have the mandate to discuss thefundamental problem of Japanese human rights
education under the law - the focus on issues
among people, but not the problems between
state and people.

Conclusion
The institutionalization of human rights
education in schools is not the end in itself. It
needs to work in a proper way. Thus the involvement of civil society is needed to monitor
human rights education under State control, andnot allow inappropriate interpretation of humanrights education, among other problems.
In many countries, national human rights
institutions are effective in playing such roles, as
they are independent bodies from governments
and thus able to examine government policies
with international human rights conventions
as a frame of reference. They can give criticalopinions or statements to the government on
the treatment of human rights education inschools (such as in Korea), or develop teaching materials with the Ministry of Education(as in the Philippines), or provide the space fordiscourse between the government and civilsociety (as in Malaysia). However, since Japan
does not yet have such independent body, itis the sole responsibility of the civil society toconsciously monitor institutionalized humanrights education.
The role of minority rights movements isvery important in the Japanese context. Among

Whither Insitutionalized Human Rights Education? Review of the Japanese Experience  183

others, the movement of people to combat Buraku discrimination has been crucial, as it played
leading roles in the Japanese post-war history
in putting pressure on the government to formulate and implement human rights policies.
Such movement made concrete proposals to thegovernment, called for the solution of the problems, including the teaching of Buraku issues
in schools to promote proper understandingof the problem and to eliminate discrimination
among non-Buraku students. It has remarkably
mobilized the grassroots in the process. As
such, the movement has prevented human rights
education in Japan from going into abstract
teaching of morals and values, but to work on
the solution of concrete problems.
However, there is a limitation to such approach in coping with the current problems ininstitutionalized human rights education. The
minority rights movements have historicallycalled for concrete measures from the government to close the gap between Buraku andnon-Buraku communities. In a sense, theyrecognized the state as duty-bearer in realizing
the rights of minorities. But its perception of thestate as a primary violator of citizens’ fundamental freedoms and human rights has been rather
weak. Such weakness in critical perspective towards state power in many minority movements
is probably connected to the problems in current
institutionalized human rights education.
Finally, the problems in the institutionalization of human rights education have much incommon in many countries in the region. Building a regional framework for monitoring theimplementation of national human rights education policies and programs is likely the next
important step for all those already involved inhuman rights education in schools.

References
Claude, Richard Pierre. 1996. Educating for Human
Rights: the Philippines and Beyond Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press.

Hirasawa, Yasumasa, 2006. “Evolution of Dowa Education and HRE in Japan: 1990s Onward”, on thewebsite of Buraku Liberation and Human Rights
Research Institute (http://blhrri.org/blhrri_e/dowaeducation/de_0012.htm).
HURIGHTS OSAKA. 2004. “Challenges and Strategies for Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific,”
FOCUS Asia-Pacific, 34, also in www.hurights.
or.jp/asia-pacific/no_34/06.htm
Kang, Soon-Won. 1999. “Human Rights Education inSouth Korea” in Human Rights Education in Asian
Schools, 2, 61-67, also in www.hurights.or.jp/pub/hreas/2/07.htm
Ofreneo, Ana Elzy. 1997. “Human Rights in the School
Curriculum: Issues and Trends in the Third Millenium” in Human Rights Journal, 2 (2) – 3 (1).

Endnotes1
See for example Richard Pierre Claude’s study
on the development of human rights education in thePhilippines, and that of Soon-Won Kang on South
Korea. In both studies, human rights education was
focused initially on suppression of rights by authoritarian governments.
2
Ofreneo (1997) pointed out the existing fears
toward human rights education in the psychology ofthe general public in the Philippines such as: humanrights education is anti-government, it makes students
and teachers too radical, it neglects responsibility andthreatens good Philippine culture.
3
Among them, Kawasaki-city (in Kanagawa-prefecture), and Kosugi-cho (in Toyama prefecture) are theearly examples that incorporated right to participationin their ordinances, as well as ensured child participationin their drafting processes.
4
Revised Fundamental Law of Education (22December 2006).
5
Buraku refers to the people recognized as descendants of outcaste populations or their communities. Seeother articles in the previous volumes of this publicationon this issue.
6
There were three special laws consecutively enacted
for community improvement projects: The Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects (1969), The Law on Special
Measures for Regional Improvement (1982), and The Law
Regarding the Special Fiscal Measures of the Governmentfor Regional Improvement Projects (1987).
7
Reverse discrimination refers to the thinking thatthose who previously were not discriminated (the nonBuraku people) are now feeling being discriminated184  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS
by policies that benefit the Buraku people and communities.
8
Unofficial translation of the text by author.
9
The English text of “The Law on the Promotionof Human Rights Education and Human Rights Awareness-Raising” is in Hirasawa (2006).

10
Article 7 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 10 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, andArticle 10 of Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women all provide forthe state obligation on human rights education.