Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.giapponese
Titolo: Cosa succede ad integrarsi troppo...

Mi viene da ridere, anche se e' una cosa seria, ma integrandosi come dice
Roberto si finisce proprio cosi'! ^_^
A parte gli scherzi, questo potrebbe essere un fatto su cui discutere, se
uno vuole criticare i giapponesi, senza inventarsi chissa' quali balle.
Aspetto commenti.
Massimiliano Crippa
max.c...@iol.it
JUDICIAL SUPPORT OF ANTI-INTERNATIONALIZATION IN JAPAN AND DISREGARD FOR
THE RULE OF LAW BY JAPAN'S OWN COURTS
THE GALLAGHER COURT CASE UPDATE FEB 2, 2000
HEADLINE
FEB 1, 2000: DISTRICT COURT QUASHES GALLAGHER
CLAIMS OF UNFAIR JOB DISMISSAL
Decision cites "the relative decrease in the role of English-language
education" (eigo kyouiku no yakuwari ga soutaiteki ni teika shiteiru), and
officially affirms a university's right to fire a foreigner due to length
of stay in Japan and marriage to a Japanese national.
BACKGROUND
The Asahikawa Gallagher Case has set an important precedent for the
employment rights of Japan's private-sector non-Japanese educators.
Yesterday's ruling has ominous implications for private-sector Japanese
workers as well.
Gwendolyn Gallagher, a non-Japanese married to a Japanese with children
and property, was fired from her contracted English instructor post in
1996 at Asahikawa University (AU), a private university in Asahikawa,
Hokkaido.
Although Japan's Labor Standards Law (roudou kijun hou) requires an
"applicable and rational reason"  (soutouteki na gouriteki na riyuu) for
the dismissal of private-sector workers, AU never gave a reason,
officially or informally, to justify it.  Gallagher, who had worked there
for twelve years without complaint from the faculty or the student body,
took AU to court.
In court depositions, the university, when pressed for justification by
the judge, stated that Gallagher's long tenure at the school gave rise to
her being over-"Japanized" (nipponaizu), voiding her ability to teach
foreign culture to students;  moreover in several affidavits (see URL
below), AU also noted that they needed "fresh foreigners"  (furesshu na
gaikokujin). In sum, AU alleges that her dismissal was 1) an issue of a
foreign teacher's expired "shelf life" and 2) the school's right to refuse
to renew a contract. These are matters that Gallagher's fellow longer-term
Japanese-national educators never contend with and are legally protected
against.
In 1997, the court ruled in Gallagher's favor with an injunction
(karishobun), and AU agreed to reinstate her with back pay in a settlement
(wakai) on the same terms as before.  However, AU then three months later
refused to renew her contract for the next year, falsely alleging that
"the settlement was done with the understanding that the new one-year
contract was terminal". Hence despite the court rulings, Gallagher was
fired twice.
Gallagher took AU to court again, and on February 1, 2000, 1:05 pm,
Asahikawa District Court Chief Judge Saiki Norio read the decision: AU was
justified in firing plaintiff Gallagher.
The legal reasoning in the hanketsu decision (see cover page here)
reflected the university's position entirely, and confoundingly so.
As reported in Hokkaido Shinbun, Feb 2, 2000, page 30, "The university is
carrying out a reformation of language education, to give students a wide
variety of languages to choose from. If one thinks about the relative
decrease in the role of English language education, there is an objective
and rational reason for refusing the renewal of the contract." (asahikawa
daigaku wa tayou na gengo o gakusei ni sentaku saseru gogaku kyouiku
kaikaku o okonatte ori, eigo kyouiku no yakuwari ga soutouteki ni teika
shiteiru koto nado o kangaeru to, keiyaku koushin kyohi ni wa kyakkanteki
gouriteki riyuu ga aru). (Doshin Feb 2 article jpegged here)
As for the shelf-life of Gallagher as an educator, the court hanketsu
ruling itself (page 63) states, "As the plaintiff has been living in Japan
for about 14 years [NB: this is incorrect--records submitted to the court
state 21 years] and is also married to a Japanese, she lacked the ability
to introduce firsthand foreign culture found overseas, as is required of a
teacher of level 3 [classes] ." (mata, genkoku wa nihonjin to kon'in shite
yaku juuyon nenkan mo nihon de seikatsu shiteita kara, kaigai ni okeru
chokkin no gaikoku bunka o shoukai suru nouryoku o youkyuu sareru reberu
III no tantou kyouin to naru koto mo dekinakatta).
The judge also noted the present economic recession and declining student
population, saying (page 64), "In order to survive as an attractive
university, it is crucial that education reform be decisively carried out,
beginning with foreign language education, in which the plaintiff's
usefulness has become relatively low." (miryoku aru daigaku to shite
ikinokoru tame ni wa gogaku kyouiku kaikaku o hajime to suru kyouiku
kaikaku o dankou suru koto ga hitsuyou fukaketsu na jousei ni ari...
genkoku no hitsuyousei ga soutaiteki ni teika shi[ta]...).
WHY THIS CASE MATTERS
The Gallagher Case ruling hereby sets a dangerous legal precedent for all
expatriate language teachers; it assumes that job qualification also
requires the abstract concept of "foreignness", which, by Judge Saiki's
opinion, can be lost if educators live here too long or take steps in
their personal life to assimilate.
Moreover, if this undefined "intellectual staleness" becomes a measure of
professionality, how will Japanese-national educators fare? This precedent
may well permit wanton firings of all long-term faculty, particularly
through its equating the inevitable passage of time with justifiable
dismissability. All in the name of carrying out "reforms" to "make
universities appealing" at all costs.
More importantly, this irresponsible ruling will further destabilize the
Japanese education system because it ignores labor laws. Foreign educators
have always been systematically vulnerable; they have with few exceptions
been hired on contracted, temporary positions--dismissable by simple
non-renewal (full-time Japanese nationals, however, without exception had
been tenured from day one). The problem is that Japan changed the laws in
1997 to permit full-time contractural employment for Japanese nationals as
well. This means that everyone regardless of nationality is fair game for
dismissal, increasingly, as the Gallagher case shows, for reasons at the
university's discretion. If the treatment of foreign contracted workers
hitherto is any guide, dismissals of educators will now become matters of
politics and economics and unrelated to professionality or qualification.
The most important fact to stress today is that the courts have hereby
emasculated the laws that are designed to protect private-sector workers.
The Gallagher Case is a test case because, unlike other egregious
foreigner dismissals (cf. Vaipae at Niigata, Korst at Okinawa, Kumamoto
Kendai), Asahikawa University is not a national or public university
employing educators as civil servants.  AU is a private university, and
therefore all employees are covered under the Labor Standards Law, which
reserves the private-sector employee's right to expect contract renewal
unless there is that "applicable and rational" reason for dismissal.
Unquantifiable "over-Japaneseness" and irrelevant conjugal choices do not
fall under that rubric.
In sum, the court ignores not only two years of testimony that never
obviated the connection between AU's purported curriculum change and
Gallagher's dismissal, but also basically affirms the right of the
university to do as it pleases--firing anybody it doesn't like and blaming
economics (although the record demonstates that AU took no other
cost-cutting measures, contrarily buying land and raising expenses in the
interim).
The bottom line: a simple extrapolation shows that increasingly-contracted
Japanese full-timers can fall into the same categories as Gallagher, where
personal matters now easily enable administrators to cut staff in the name
of reform.
Gallagher will be appealing this decision to a higher court. For the sake
of all educators in Japan, let us hope for a more responsible and
humanistic ruling.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
A fuller background of this and most cases cited above (with jpegged
court documents in original Japanese) may be found in the JALT PALE
Journal of Professional Studies, back issues at:
http://www.voicenet.co.jp/~davald/PALEJournals.html
http://www.voicenet.co.jp/~davald/essays.html#ninkiseigallagher
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were concerning the firing of that
one American teacher who was married to a Japanese citizen. Who even had
children.  Who had been living in Japan the last 12 years?.
From what little information that I had read about the case.  This teacher
was being fired from this University for becoming too Japanese.
I was thinking about all of it after reading the information posted here
about this case.
I do not want to cause any heated arguments about it.  But I just would
like to share my opinion.
If I was hired to teach about present American culture and lifestyles to a
University in another country.
If I had lived in that country for 11,12 years.  Because of how fast. That
American lifestyles change so rapidly here in the US.  I think it would be
difficult to teach,100% truth about American lifestyles to the very present.
I would only be able to teach,what American lifestyle was like. When I had
left the U.S. For example,look how fast American lifestyles changed from the
60's to the 70's.  Maybe when I left the U.S. in the 60's .  Bell Bottom
pants were the style.
If I had never gone back to the U.S. I would not have the true
knowledge,to know when Bell Bottom pants were no longer in style.  Do any of
you agree?.
So therefore,I would be unable to teach about the present lifestyle,and
culture. If I had lived in another country for 12 years.
I think that if I was married to a citizen of that country,that I was
hired to teach. I think it would be very easy for me,to adopt,to the culture
of that country.  At the same time,slowly loose bits and pieces of my home
country,and culture.
If the University that I was hired to teach "present American
lifestyles,culture" fired me for becoming too much,a part of their culture.
That I was unable to teach the students about the present American culture
and lifestyles. I would have to say,that the University would have a valid
argument. Due to these factors.
Living in their country for quite a few years. Being married to a citizen
of their country. Also raising my children there,in their culture.  Because
of this,I would almost tend to agree with them.  So I would have to say they
would be correct in firing me.
I would like to know everyone who is on the list to give their own
personal thoughts about this.
I did not read this story so I cannot speak regarding the facts other
than what you said in your post.
Having lived in Japan for a total of 25 years, at different periods, I
can assure you that it is very easy to adapt to the resident country's
culture and lifestyle, while not keeping pace with the changes in one's
native country.  We all know that there are drastic changes occurring in
Japan and not all of them are acceptable to the older generation.  Many
of these changes are due to the hordes of young Japanese who are studying
and traveling abroad.  Others are attributable to foreign residents in
Japan.
We will probably never know the true reason for the teacher's firing. It
is very easy for the hierarchy to simply say that she was becoming too
Japanese.  Perhaps her teachings were not entirely in consonance with the
university's policies.  We all know that foreigners living in Japan are
most anxious to instigate change which will benefit them.  If you do not
believe this read any daily Japanese English language newspaper and turn
to the "Letters to the Editor" column.  On a daily basis, there are
letters from foreign residents who are unhappy with Japanese lifestyles.
My answer to them is "If you don't like it why do you stay."  There are
very few foreign residents in Japan who are there against their will and
most of them are government employees and military.
Is it possible that the teacher in question was not just teaching foreign
culture but possibly using her influence to effect changes that were not
acceptable to the university?

 Aspetto commenti.
*NON* postare messaggi di 200 righe (e ieri ne hai mandato uno da 500).
Impara a segnalare la url dove si puo' trovare il testo, a metterlo su una
pagina tua, oppure ad inviarlo in email solo agli interessati.
-- 
Bai bii,
Gianluca.
"Who knows where the road may lead us, only a fool would say"

 pagina tua, oppure ad inviarlo in email solo agli interessati.
Questi consigli sono in parte senza senso o inapplicabili. Cosa ti rode?
Massimiliano Crippa
max.c...@iol.it

 Questi consigli sono in parte senza senso o inapplicabili. Cosa ti rode?
Se sono inapplicabili, lo sono perche' non ne hai voglia.
Credo che sia alquanto ragionevole non inviare msg di 500 righe quando
basta segnalare dove trovare il testo che si vuole comunicare (ma 500
righe mi sembrano "spam" bello e buono, piu' che uno *SPUNTO* per una
discussione).
E' solo un consiglio/richiesta (visto che vorrei continuare a seguire il
ng), non mi rode proprio nulla.


 discussione).
Dove sta scritto che bisogna fare messaggi brevi. E poi pensi che esistano
solo i siti web. Chi ti dice che siano linkabili le cose che ho riportato?
Evidentemente non hai voglia di leggere, ma solo di cliccare per saltare da
un sito all'altro. Non scrivi mai niente e reclami anche quando gli altri
scrivono. Mah...
Massimiliano Crippa
max.c...@iol.it

 scrivono. Mah...
Non dire "gli altri", l'unico che si permette di inviare papiri da 200-500
righe sei tu. Nessun altro lo fa (eppure qualche bell'articolo si trova su
qualunque sito), come mai?


 qualunque sito), come mai?
L'unico che ha avuto da ridire sei tu, come mai?
Comunque non ho intenzione di misurare i messaggi col metro, ne' i miei ne'
quelli degli altri.
Mai che si riesca ad avere un commento costruttivo...
Massimiliano Crippa
max.c...@iol.it

 quelli degli altri.
Non ti dico " se il messaggio e' di 199 righe invialo, se e' di 200
tientelo", ti chiedo solo di usare un po' piu' di buon senso (come hai
fatto in un msg che hai inviato dopo il mio appunto, specificando la
pagina dove trovarlo)


Dici che non scrivi praticamente mai e mi vieni a dire che il newsgroup
serve per discutere...
Se personalmente non hai problemi, perche' ne discutiamo. Scrivimi una mail
in privato la prossima volta.
Tu sei andato a vederlo il link che ho postato seguendo la tua
"richiesta/consiglio"?
Massimiliano Crippa
max.c...@iol.it

>Massimiliano Crippa
500 righe? Mi sembrano un pň pochine Max, ti sei tenuto stretto questa
volta! Speriamo che non sia grave, a me piacciono grossi, belli corposi, in
cui si capisca e non ci sia bisogno di intuire il senso del discorso. Uno
MAXi-spunto con i controfiocchi!
Saluti a tutti,
AKUMA Tetsu
P.S. non mi stupisce lui che chiede ma tu che rispondi.

Dove sta scritto che bisogna fare messaggi brevi. 
Ciao. Fregatene di quello che ti dicono sti qua.
I tuoi msg sono sempre belli e interessanti,
on topic, e da soli meritano di tenere il ng linkato.
Ciao
             Semi