I’ve asked several of those deeply involved in the ATEK discussions to submit a position paper explaining their views. There is one Pro-ATEK article, written by Tom Rainey-Smith, current President of ATEK (as of May 20th, 2009), one undecided article, written by Chris (also known as Homer or PatrickGHBusan on Dave’s ESL Cafe), and one anti-ATEK article, written by Mike Yates, (also known as Scouse Mouse on Dave’s ESL Cafe).
After having a chance to look at the others’ articles, I have also asked each to submit a second article, which will respond to the points made and questions asked by the other positions, in the first round of articles. That second round of articles will be published simultaneously, side by side, as these ones are, once I have received them all.
You can read the Pro-ATEK position here.
You can read the Anti-ATEK position here.
You can read the undecided position here.
You can read a brief history of ATEK, and a look at what’s ahead, here.
Feel free to comment on any and all of the posts. However, The Hub of Sparkle prides itself on the pristine cleanliness of its comment boards, and asks everyone taking part in the discussion to stay focused on issues instead of people. Remain factual and informative, not personal or accusing. Avoid derogatory adjectives, no matter how emphatically you disagree with someone. Don’t poke other commenters with sticks to see how they react: we all know how to act like adults, so let’s do so. If you wouldn’t say it to a person’s face without starting an argument, it’s best not to put it on an online forum, either: our goal is to understand, not to argue.
I’m doing my best to keep the discussions here as productive as possible, and yeah, five articles just came up, where before, I got stressed out, and frankly, exhausted, just keeping tabs on one. [update] As Tinpan suggested, I’m going to close comments on the other posts, so that we can keep the discussion limited to this single thread, in an effort to avoid repetition. Feel free to preface your comment with re: Pro, re: Anti, re: Undecided, re: Timeline, or re: Methodology.
Please please please make my job easier by commenting in such a way that I don’t have to post stuff like this, this, or this. If people are being asked the same questions over and over, they are invited to say “I already answered that question” and provide a link to the place where they did so, to save themselves the extra typing, and circular threads.
[Update:] At the same time, one of the moderators at Dave’s ESL Cafe, who has put in a ton of work moderating the latest ATEK discussion thread, extends this invitation:
[Many of the commenters here] feel like, I believe, that they want to be heard, and, as you can see, many of them are permanent residents, have a lot at stake here, and have families in some cases, and there are, of course, people on E and F visas who have different opinions. I think as long as there is a way both sides can be hard in a respectful way and there is proper leadership on Dave’s and from ATEK and leadership in a true sense from individual posters, then they can sort out what they need to sort out.
We will do what we can to help and listen. It’s easy for any side to get defensive. There has to be give and give. I think Dave’s posters don’t don’t mind giving in many cases, but not unconditionally.
I would say many people in this thread showed a lot of leadership. For the poster who sort of psychologically pleaded that an ATEK thread remain on Dave’s, I thank you for that. It definitely encouraged us to leave this one out there. The point is make yourselves heard in a proper way.
Those who are anti-ATEK, pro-ATEK, ATEK executives and their friends are welcome to come to Dave’s and discuss whatever issue in a civil, open, respectful manner, and we will do what we can, as I am sure the majority of Dave’s posters interested in the issues will do so.
I’ve been following the latest ATEK comment thread at Dave’s ESL Cafe, and I’ve been really impressed with the way the conversation has been going; I echo “Enrico Palazzo”‘s invitation, and encourage Hub of Sparkle readers to go contribute to the respectful, thoughtful commentary that’s been taking place there.
21/05/2009 at 9:03 am Permalink
Three questions that have been asked and asked and now I am asking again;
1. What was the relationship between Prof Wagner and the members of ATEK, specifically how did ATEK become aware of and come into possession of the report to the NHRC for the purpose of launching the equal checks campaign?
2. Who was involved in the decision process of launching the campaign, specifically what pros and cons were considered and who was consulted if anyone?
3. What specifically was the goal of the campaign? Was it to have checks removed from E-2 holders? Was it to have checks added to others? The only legal grounds that Prof Wagner cited was the fact that drug and HIV tests are required for E-2 visa holders *while in* Korea. If the checks were moved outside of Korea would that satisfy ATEK as it would Prof. Wagner?
21/05/2009 at 9:44 am Permalink
Hi great post! Super informative.
I just wish the comments were managed differently. Seems like they are scattered. Would it make sense to have them all in one space?? Perhaps people could preface posts with something like – “RE: Pro-ATEK position,” etc.
Anyway, thanks a lot for providing all the information.
21/05/2009 at 11:45 am Permalink
I have some questions for the Pro-ATEK side that have come up a few times but have never, in my opinion, received a proper answer. They would be the questions of money and funding.
As it stands now, as far as I can tell, ATEK is a completely voluntary organization with no dues or fees. In the past this there were discussions of dues or fees or money changing hands. There have even been allegations ATEK being used to make a profit.
Now, I realize that the organization is in it’s infant, or even possibly prenatal, stage, but this is a concern for everyone.
So my questions are this:
1. Having already spent a bit of money out of pocket, are you planning to chalk that up to a lose, or are you hoping that ATEK will reimburse you in the future?
2. How will ATEK support its various endevours? Or is there no current “plan” and that will be a problem for the national committee to deal with?
3. Also, what are the legal implications of ATEK doing any sort of fund raising to keep itself going?
I would also be interested in hearing what the undecided and Anti-ATEK sides have to say about this.
21/05/2009 at 12:31 pm Permalink
Question for the Anti-ATEK group:
Would you say statements like this one by ethnic Korean Jason Lim are “divide the community”? Concerning the E-2 requirements, Lim writes:
“Not only were these requirements onerous, but also inherently unfair, since teachers on F-1 (professor), F-2 (spouse of Korean national) and F-4 (ethnic Korean) were exempt from the requirement. This rule clearly discriminates based on ethnic origin and professional status. It assumes 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? It’s unjustifiable. ”
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/168_39640.html
I used the term “dividing the community” since that is how an Anti-ATEK rep categorized a similar comment from Vandom, the E-2 who refused the tests.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/137_45155.html
Mike Yates wrote:
“More scaremongering, based on the fiction that ATEK created. This just shows how divided the community has become after the Equal Checks campaign.”
Can the Anti-ATEK side, explain why they think comments are not about bringing people together equally, but instead are “scaremongering” designed to divide the community?
Thanks . . .
21/05/2009 at 1:01 pm Permalink
Tinpan: as per your suggestion, I’ve made this the comment forum for the Atek panel posts.
As I said in the “methodology” page, each panelist will contribute a second article responding to the first round and answering questions. It is possible that some of the questions asked in the comments here will also have a chance to be addressed, especially if they are asked as objectively as they were in the first and third comments here.
21/05/2009 at 1:36 pm Permalink
From ATEK’s web site:
Current foreign language instructor (E-2) visa rules, which require a criminal background check, drug test and an HIV test, should be revised as they clearly discriminate on the basis of national origin, according to the filer of the report with NHRCK, law professor Benjamin Wagner of Kyunghee University. Non-citizen teachers are required to submit to these checks, but non-citizen ethnic Koreans, foreigners married to Koreans, and Korean citizens are not.
However, neither ATEK nor Wagner are against background checks per se.
“The goal is to increase the quality of all teachers and to increase the protection of all children in Korea,” said Wagner, who notes that many overseas residents married to Koreans are themselves parents of a new generation of bi-racial Korean children. “Equal testing procedures are the best way to accomplish that goal.”
Mr. Rainey-Smith from the pro-ATEK argument:
This appears to have been in reaction to the fact that F-class visa holders have been concerned about that the particular requirements that we opposed being expanded and applied to them also. At no point in time did we argue this. Rather, we simply asked for the newly-introduced requirements of HIV and drug tests to be dropped so that E2 visa holders are subjected to the same treatment as all other Korean and non-Korean English teachers in this country. It is important to note that this includes E1 visa holders as well as F-class visa holders. Our intention was never to frame the discussion in a way that pitted E against F-class visa holders.
A lot of the confusion on the part of the F visa group stems from the conflicting statements that have repeatedly come from ATEK. The equal checks campaign for a number of reasons continues to be the focal point for a lot of people that are questioning ATEK, its motives, procedures, and integrity.
I would like to call attention to that last sentence. I am not anti-ATEK. Yes, there are some that are, but I think the majority of those that were engaged in the debate both on Dave’s and here are in support of an association the can be the voice for not of English teachers in Korea. We have been asking questions and those questions have not been answered.
Finally, a true story that is related to discrimination and fighting the government for the abolishment of discriminatory practices. In 1974 our family moved to a little town called Round Hill, Virginia. This was not long after winning the war on desegregation and there were still a lot of individual mop up legal battles going on. One of these battles was for the rights of blacks to swim in the public swimming pool. The town fought this and lost. The outcome? They drained the pool, filled it with dirt and planted a memorial garden to “the brave confederate soldiers that had given their last full measure” fighting for the South during the Civil War.
The point is you might get equal treatment, but you might not get it in a way you planned. Did ATEK really think that Korea is going to roll back visa requirements and lose face when other options are available? If they didn’t, then what exactely were they thinking?
21/05/2009 at 1:55 pm Permalink
Greg you’ve said that there were meetings where the possible negative and positive outcomes of the ECFA campaign were discussed. You also indicate that minutes of those meetings were kept but will not be made available publicly because;
“I’ve never heard of organizations (except some public government hearings) sharing their minutes with anyone outside. I’d be interested to hear of an example of that.”
I can appreciate your reluctance to disclose the minutes to “outsiders”.
In virtually every western jurisdiction the minutes of board meetings of public and private corporations are available for any shareholder to inspect. Meetings of union executive boards and committees are available for inspection by the rank and file members.
My question is this;
Are the minutes of the meetings where the possible negative and positive outcomes of the ECFA campaign were discussed available for inspection to ATEK members?
Looking forward to hearing from you.
21/05/2009 at 7:10 pm Permalink
When will Wagner’s Report be released for public viewing and why was it kept from the public when it was originally submitted as “Open” then later changed to “Confidential”?
21/05/2009 at 7:14 pm Permalink
Hi long time listener, first time caller!
Can anyone tell me more about the controversy surrounding the WAGNER REPORT?
Anti or Pro, whomever. I’m an undecided and I think more info on the report would help me to make a decision one way or the other.
21/05/2009 at 10:28 pm Permalink
Jason: Have you read what ATEK has to say about the Wagner report, and been through the things said about it on other comment boards?
At Roboseyo, Fred has given a pretty good outline of why F-Series Visa holders are concerned about the Wagner report. His first mention of The Wagner Report is here, and then, in responding to others’ comments, he’ll answer most of your questions about why F-visa holders are concerned.
http://roboseyo.blogspot.com/2009/05/tony-hellmann-and-atek-vs-trolls.html?showComment=1242105000000#c6343328348043585842
This comment cites some of the news articles that caused concern.
http://roboseyo.blogspot.com/2009/05/tony-hellmann-and-atek-vs-trolls.html?showComment=1242105000000#c6343328348043585842
Here is the interview Ben Wagner had with ATEK, which was posted on The Marmot’s Hole, outlining the way the current E2 visa health check etc. regulations were implemented without due legal process, and without compelling statistical proof that they were needed to protect Korea’s children:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/02/04/atek-interview-with-prof-benjamin-wagner/
You should know that The Wagner Report itself will be made available online soon, and when time permits, Prof. Wagner has agreed to answer some questions about the report which I’ve sent him.
ATEK describes their position on the Equal Checks For All campaign here.
http://atek.or.kr/latest-position-papers/68-atek-positions-and-objectives
or my own summary here
http://www.koreasparkle.com/2009/02/in-korea-on-an-e2-visa/#content
22/05/2009 at 12:59 pm Permalink
Some great questions here, and I am going to try and answer them all in my next article. I want to try and keep out of the debate for now, as I need to get away from ATEK and back onto my studies for a few days.
I do want to quickly address Tinpan, as he brought something up that I posted on the Roboseyo blog after I submitted my first article:
Saying that F-2/5 Visa holders have not been background checked is fiction (It may be true of F-4 holders, but I don’t know for sure). I was checked before I entered Korea on an E-2 visa (public school). F-2 Visa holders who get married here and have not been checked before are checked during their F-2 application. Immigration complete international criminal checks and credit checks as part of the F-5 process!
After the initial check, we have residency in Korea. That enables us to claim that Korea is our home. We no longer need to provide checks as a condition of entry, but employers are free to request Korean Criminal checks of us (as any new crimes committed would be here), and can request checks from home if they wish. Immigration do not.
The equal checks campaign echoed the sentiment of the Korean media, but worked to shift the attention from all teachers, and instead focused on those of us with F-Visa’s. As somebody with a wife and child here, I resent the implication that I could well be a criminal who is able to work with children. I especially resent that my neighbours are likely to believe it, because a teachers organisation made up of foreigners who have been “checked” say it is true.
In Summary: F-2/5 visa holders are checked at point of entry. The checks continue to be carried out when they are required by our employers. F-Visa holders who have not been checked are not given the right to employment (F-1 Visa). Saying that we have not been background checked is untrue, it is damaging, and it is the foundation of a number of “loss of reputation” libel cases could well be brought before the Korean courts.
I hope that clarifies things
22/05/2009 at 5:46 pm Permalink
Rob, I know you are busy and thanks by the way for doing a terrific job in focusing this debate, but the Wagner report, where is it?
22/05/2009 at 5:51 pm Permalink
Believe me, TJ, you’ll know as soon as I do.
22/05/2009 at 6:02 pm Permalink
I guess the edits are taking longer than they expected. Feel free to delete that if you find it disrespectful or inappropriate. I fail to see how it takes this long to deliver a report that both ATEK and Prof. Wagner have in their possession. It has been requested for four months. If you are feeling any frustration about this, please keep in mind that this is the exact frustration that we have felt since February in trying to get answers to our questions.
22/05/2009 at 6:55 pm Permalink
The longer this “Report” by Wagner, which ATEK already has a copy of, takes to get released, the more suspicious things become.
Why the wait? I just don’t get it, unless of course their’s some heavy duty editing going on. Please let that not be the case….
22/05/2009 at 6:59 pm Permalink
Can we extend the benefit of the doubt to Prof. Wagner, please?
22/05/2009 at 8:38 pm Permalink
Rob,
We can extend the benefit of the doubt to Associate Professor Wagner (lets call him by his actual job title as he is not a full Professor as of yet). However, as TJ said some people have requested to see this report for over 4 months. How far does the benefit of the doubt extend?
I do not know if you are aware of this Report saga and how it unfolded but in short: ATEK discussed the report as the foundation of their Equal Checks Campaign, then said they would publicly support it (even if they were not officially lauched or established), when people asked about this campaign and about the report they were initially told by ATEK that the report would be made available and made some great points. The content of the report was partially leaked in an interview with A.P. Wagner. Then ATEK said the report would not be made public as stated before but that they had read it and that people whould “trust them…the content was solid”. At the end of the day Rob, the entire campaign ran it course and no one saw the report. Nor was the relationship between ATEK and Wagner explained. Some people do know about that relationship but it would be far better for ATEK to come out about it themselves.
I hope this short summation better explains the frustration of some and why the benefit of the doubt does not extend very far indeed when it comes to this report.
This summation may also give you an inkling as to why ATEK encounters such resistence or did so in the past.
22/05/2009 at 9:02 pm Permalink
Kind of irrelevant, I suppose, but associate professors in fact are properly addressed as “Professor” ~ and insisting on “AP So-and-so” sounds pretty ridiculous. The only real difference between an AP and full professor is usually tenure: AP’s are tenure track but not yet confirmed, as opposed to being fully tenured professors. Both are professionally addressed as “Professor” (along with assistant professors) regardless.
22/05/2009 at 9:22 pm Permalink
I am well aware of the disctinction Gomushin Girl. My use of the term associate was deliberate. There is however a significant difference between a full tenure Professor and an Associate Professor or even a Lecturer. Each would be called Professor as a courtesy but each has a very different status withing their university and each has a different level of experience. In this case Associate means this person passed the bar in 2007 and has been a Professor for a little over a year in Korea. In that respect, the term becomes extremely relevant as it speaks to the qualifications of the person to be the basis of an entire public campaign that can have direct impact on all foreign teachers in Korea….
I hope this clears things up. I would also kindly ask that you drop words like “ridiculous” or similar terms from future posts. As Rob said, they help no one and sure do not make for very objective debate. I was not insulted by it but some other people might be.
22/05/2009 at 11:32 pm Permalink
On this ‘professor’ sidetrack, I believe myself to be alone in thinking the word is too overused here whereby anybody in a university seems to don that title? I presume the person in question is fact a Dr Wagner, a fine title to behold. Cannot the word professor be reserved for those of extreme merit and service to acedemia, i.e the head of a faculty or member of a university senate. Hearing of all of these professors makes me think of Hogwarts.
23/05/2009 at 12:07 am Permalink
“I resent the implication that I could well be a criminal who is able to work with children. ”
Classic.
23/05/2009 at 3:03 am Permalink
Associate Professors are tenure track, and their professional title is Professor. Everything Gomushin Girl said is correct. It’s a bit of a stretch, but a person who completes an M.D. is known as a doctor, even if they haven’t finished all of their training. Disagree with the person all you want (personally, I’ve got no idea who he is and I’d like to know more about his association with ATEK), but playing semantic games with his job title is petty and a waste of time.
As long as we’re playing inside baseball, a Lecturer shouldn’t get the title “Professor.” To list yourself as such on a resume would get you into trouble with a hiring committee.
23/05/2009 at 6:24 pm Permalink
Prof. Wagner’s Report said to be released “this week.”
tik-toc….tic-toc….tik-toc…..tic-tok……
Prof. Wagner, if you’re following this thread, why the LONG wait?
23/05/2009 at 11:43 pm Permalink
pocariboy73 – I’m also interested in reading it. Any guesses on when it’ll be up Hub?
24/05/2009 at 12:20 am Permalink
Don’t know exactly when for sure, but allow me to nudge Popular Gusts onto the radar of anybody who’s waiting with bated breath for the Wagner report.
24/05/2009 at 4:33 am Permalink
Thanks for that Rob… I always like Popular Gusts, but his blog never liked FeedDemon before. I’m happy to find that it works now!
So… Wagner acknowledges that Korean Law does prevent Korean Nationals from working with Children if they have a criminal history, and this includes those who work in Hagwons? Sure, the law is ignored by employers, but that actually has little to do with this debate. It means that E-2 Visa restrictions are not discriminatory when compared with the checks that Koreans go through. The real problem is with Korean Employers who ignore their obligations.
This brings us right back to the initial stance of the anti’s – ATEK’s equal checks for all campaign had nothing to do with Koreans v Foreigners, and everything to do with E’s v F’s. If they really wanted to pursue equality, they would have targeted Korean employers who ignore labour and employment laws (including those surrounding criminal checks), or went after the legal system that allows crimes to be erased from records.
Of course, in attacking those groups, they would have come across opposition with a voice. F Visa holders were a much easier target!
It comes down to this: ATEK want F-Visa holders to get checks from ‘home’. Korea is home! We are long-term residents of Korea! Our employers can get our Korean criminal checks any time they want, and they don’t even need to ask!
24/05/2009 at 7:25 pm Permalink
>So… Wagner acknowledges that Korean Law does prevent Korean Nationals from working
>with Children if they have a criminal history, and this includes those who work in Hagwons?
Mike, read more carefully. It doesn’t say Korean Law prevents K-nationals from working with children if they have a criminal history, it says a history of sexual offenses. An E-2 visa holder who is denied for a DUI or petty theft is not being treated equally with a K-national who could still teach with those kinds of offenses.
>It comes down to this: ATEK want F-Visa holders to get checks from ‘home’. Korea is home!
You’re putting words in ATEK’s mouth, and the wrong ones. ATEK has never advocated that F-series visa holders do drug or HIV tests. ATEK has said that they want these checks dropped for all non-citizen teachers.
24/05/2009 at 8:17 pm Permalink
Does ATEK advocate that all F Holders submit CRC’s from their country or origin, the same standard as E2 Holders. “Equal checks for all.” Even though F5′s, and possibly F2′s, are record checked by the KIS directly before they are granted F status.
And if that Dave’s thread had not been deleted, it would have shown that ATEK was not clear about their positions with regards to Equal Checking.You 3 guys brought this upon yourselves due to your poorly thought out and misnanaged publicity campaigns, press releases, and “launches.” All to garner media attention at the expense of substance and credibility.
If Tony was straight with us from the start, rather than playing with words and semantics, then you may still be PR Manager.
24/05/2009 at 10:49 pm Permalink
“You’re putting words in ATEK’s mouth, and the wrong ones. ATEK has never advocated that F-series visa holders do drug or HIV tests. ATEK has said that they want these checks dropped for all non-citizen teachers.”–Tony
Anyone that believes that Korea is going to drop these requirements needs to pee in a cup themselves because they are high on something.
They only reason checks in Korea are discriminatory according to Prof Wagner himself is that they take place in Korea. When faced with a choice between dropping the requirements altogether or simply requiring the checks in your home country before stepping foot in Korea, which one do you think they are going to chose?
The entire equal checks campaign was nothing more than a dangerous publicity stunt.
ATEK can dance around and claim it was for this or that, but the sad truth is they counted on people not doing their homework and jumping on the complaint bandwagon. I wouldn’t have said this four months ago, but at this point I sincerely hope this all comes back to bite E-2 visa holders in the ass so much that the current leadership of ATEK become the pariahs of Korea.
24/05/2009 at 11:04 pm Permalink
Tony,
You say that “ATEK has said that they want these checks dropped for all non-citizen teachers”.This is NOT TRUE!
This is from the ATEK Website:
ATEK believes that all teachers should undergo a criminal background check, a health check (without HIV test), and an academic degree verification to work with children.
[SNIP]
ATEK does not support criminal background checks or drug tests for anyone who does not work with children …E-1 visa holders and all F-series visa holders who work with adults should not be subjected to discriminatory checks.
It doesn’t quite match up with what you are saying. You say ATEK wants them dropped, and this has been repeated, yet the ATEK website clearly states: “ATEK believes that all teachers should undergo a criminal background check, a health check (without HIV test), and an academic degree verification to work with children.”
ATEK want them dropped for teachers who work with adults, which is a minority of teachers (and one that you happen to be a part of… hmmm). Making claims that ATEK wants them dropped for all teachers is just like saying that ATEK represents all teachers, and ATEK have made it perfectly clear that they would never do that, right?
25/05/2009 at 12:54 am Permalink
The NHRCK report is up at Gusts:
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2009/05/nhrck-report.html
25/05/2009 at 12:59 am Permalink
Thanks, Tinpan.
I posted this at the Dave’s comment thread as well:
re: the delays in the release of this document:
I talked with Ben/Prof. Wagner/call him what you like today: we got in touch somewhere in the midst of this stuff. The 2 reasons he has taken so long to publish it were because:
1. The report you see here is a more complete version than what was originally submitted in February (and a copy of which was sent to ATEK). This is a composite that represents the culmination of the communications between Ben Wagner and the chief investigator of the original complaint: Benjamin Wagner provided further support and explanation to his original points several times, where the investigator requested details. This updated report is more complete and thorough than the original NHRCK complaint.
2. Before publishing, he went through this report painstakingly, and tried to find online versions of as many of the sources he cited as possible, so that any reader could click links and research the topic and the related laws on their own.
If you are worried that he is trying to spin things, Benjamin has also informed me that he sent a copy of the report visible at Popular Gusts to the NHRCK and has informed them that it has been released to the public, and the version as it is at Popular Gusts should henceforward be considered the official version of the report. Whatever the NHRCK does next (and they haven’t made any official moves yet), this document is the basis of their response: the document filed in February is obsolete.
I have a copy of the report in front of me and I am reading it as carefully as I can, red pen in hand, in order to provide a summary as soon as I can. But don’t take my word for it: if you have a lot invested in Korea, I highly recommend you read it yourselves.
25/05/2009 at 1:31 am Permalink
I have scanned through this prior to reading it, and have run a few search queries on it. It seems that the only mention of F-2/4/5 Visas is included in footnote 211.
“If increased scrutiny is warranted for foreign teachers, then it is clearly warranted for Korean teachers as well and standards should be applied equally.”
And the footnote:
It is important to note, however, that while allowing F-2 and F-4 visa foreign English teachers to be exempt from academic verification and criminal background check requirements is discriminatory in the employment context where such checks provide legitimate protections; the F-2 and the F-4 visas in themselves do not constitute discrimination. In both cases, the criteria used for differentiation in creating the F-2 and F-4 visa categories are reasonable, objective and factually justified. Both ethnic Korean non-citizens and non-citizens married to Koreans share closer ties to the Republic of Korea. In the case of noncitizens
married to Koreans, they have familial ties to Korea in the form of their citizen husband or wife and any children or in-laws.
Unless the report has been altered, it appears that Wagner agrees with everything that the anti-ATEK side have been saying all along. Checks should be completed by the employer, not immigration. In line with that, I would argue that it is reasonable to expect that people coming here to teach should submit these documents before entry, but for people living here on family visa’s, they should be submitted to the employer. Exactly the point that has been repeated by the F-community for the last few months…
Tom Rainey-Smith and Jason Thomas, you have some explaining to do.
25/05/2009 at 1:42 am Permalink
I’d say the journalists who wrote these articles:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/02/117_38955.html
and
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2900646
have some explaining to do.
25/05/2009 at 2:32 am Permalink
Rob,
The KT article quotes ATEK’s Communications Director as requesting checks on other visa holders whilst the the Joongang Daily article does not directly quote anybody.
I for one can not believe that the KT misquoted ATEK again, as the ‘copy/paste complaint’ I linked to in my article had the very same objections.
25/05/2009 at 7:25 am Permalink
does he still have a copy of the report he originally submitted in February? If so, I’d prefer to see that one as that is what got the controversy started.
25/05/2009 at 9:04 am Permalink
Those journalists will have no explaining to do if the original report says something different from what the new and improved report says. To that extent, the original report is not ‘obsolete’. Why not release it too?
25/05/2009 at 9:40 am Permalink
howie – can we hear what you think about the report?
25/05/2009 at 9:49 am Permalink
I have another question. This time it’s for the Anti-ATEK people.
This is another question that I’ve seen pop up, but has never even received a comment. That is the issue of F- series people involved in this debate assuming that they are the only F-series people out there.
Do you really believe that English teachers who have married Korean nationals are some how in the majority of F-series holders?
Can’t we assume that many F-4 holders are either just visiting for a time or working in a completely different industry?
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that many if not the majority of F-2 and F-5 holders are foreign brides?
Would it not also be reasonable to assume that many if not most of these woman have nothing to do with the education industry, other than when it applies to their children?
There are a lot of other issues that then pop up once you follow this line of thinking. Have you contemplated how these other people might effect the situation as a whole?
25/05/2009 at 9:56 am Permalink
“howie – can we hear what you think about the report?”
Certainly. Right after I’ve seen the original.
25/05/2009 at 10:36 am Permalink
Howie, get to the merits of the report. You claim ATEK is sowing seed of dissension, but it seems like that is what you are trying to do. Why the divisive obstinance?
I read it (well, about 2/3rds so far) and its all about non-citizens rights. The message I get is: doing right by non-citizens means a better Korea for Koreans, Fs, Es, and EVERYBODY.
And I must say, I agree.
25/05/2009 at 11:05 am Permalink
I disagree. The contents of Prof. Wagner’s report may be the only concern for you. There’s another issue for me as I’m an F series visa holder. That relates to the wisdom exercised by ATEK in supporting the original report, not the one released yesterday, which appears to have only alleged discrimination as between different classes of foreigners. If the Joong Ang Daily report is incorrect and the original report is not substantially different from the one released yesterday, than Prof. Wagner should have no difficulty releasing that one as well.
If however, the original report only alleged discrimination as between the different visa classes than in my view ATEK essentially sold F series visa holders down the river by supporting it, hardly an appropriate gesture for an organization that purports to provide a voice for all English teachers in this country. That error in judgment, I would suggest, shouldn’t only be a concern for the anti-ATEK crowd. Surely even ATEK supporters have in interest in knowing whether the founders and current leaders of this organization are capable of exercising sound judgment on these kinds of important matters.
I think Robosayo will support me when I say, that when word came last week that Prof. Wagner was going to release his report, I told him that what I was interested in seeing was the original as submitted to the NHRCK last February, not a synopsis or revised version. I’m still waiting for that.
25/05/2009 at 11:25 am Permalink
>Tony,
>You say that “ATEK has said that they want these checks dropped for all non-citizen >teachers”.This is NOT TRUE!
Not all. Teachers of children. It is true.
>This is from the ATEK Website:
>ATEK believes that all teachers should undergo a criminal background check, a health check
> (without HIV test), and an academic degree verification to work with children.
>[SNIP]
>ATEK does not support criminal background checks or drug tests for anyone who does not
>work with children …E-1 visa holders and all F-series visa holders who work with adults >should not be subjected to discriminatory checks.
>It doesn’t quite match up with what you are saying. You say ATEK wants them dropped, and
>this has been repeated, yet the ATEK website clearly states: “ATEK believes that all
>teachers should undergo a criminal background check, a health check (without HIV test), and
>an academic degree verification to work with children.”
It matches up exactly with what I’m saying, because I’M the one that wrote that text you’re quoting. Korean public school teachers are nationally mandated to undergo a criminal background check, a health check (without HIV test), and an academic degree verification. Expatriate teachers working with children should be held to the same standard: hence, EQUAL CHECKS FOR ALL. Similarly, Koreans teaching adults don’t have nationally mandated criminal background checks, so neither should expatriate teachers. Again, equal checks for all.
Now, finally, do you understand what ATEK and I have been saying? I don’t think I can make it more clear.
>ATEK want them dropped for teachers who work with adults, which is a minority of teachers
>(and one that you happen to be a part of… hmmm). Making claims that ATEK wants them
>dropped for all teachers is just like saying that ATEK represents all teachers, and ATEK have
>made it perfectly clear that they would never do that, right?
There are a couple things wrong with the above paragraph. 1) Do you have opinions about what E-2, F-series, or expatriate teachers in general should be required to do? I know you do, as you write about these opinions…is that saying that you represent all those teachers? No. It is your opinion. Similarly, ATEK is expressing the opinions of its members. Its members have opinions about the requirements of their profession, even if you’re in that profession. Get used to it; that isn’t going to change. 2) After reading the sweeping claims you make about F-series visa holders in the first debate round, I think you’re calling the kettle black here (or “asking if the kettle is black, right?”). 3) Are you suggesting that ATEK request that the checks be dropped for ATEK members only? Come on!
25/05/2009 at 11:33 am Permalink
>That relates to the wisdom exercised by ATEK in supporting the original report, not the one
>released yesterday, which appears to have only alleged discrimination as between different
>classes of foreigners. If the Joong Ang Daily report is incorrect and the original report is not
>substantially different from the one released yesterday, than Prof. Wagner should have no
>difficulty releasing that one as well.
This report is not substantially different in the sense of making opposite assertions…this report includes supplemental information sent in after the original report was filed, to support the original claims.
And I agree that Professor Wagner should release the original report, just to quell the conspiracy theorists (because obviously him SAYING they are substantively the same isn’t enough for some people).
25/05/2009 at 11:43 am Permalink
You know, Tony there’s really no need to describe us in derogatory terms like “conspiracy theorists”. The report released today is at completely at odds with the newspaper reports made at the time. I’m only trying to determine whether those reports were correct or inaccurate and that, from an F series visa holder’s perspective, is a legitimate endeavor. If the reports are inaccurate I’ll contact the Joong Ang Daily reporter and see why he got it wrong.
25/05/2009 at 12:43 pm Permalink
“Its members have opinions about the requirements of their profession, even if you’re in that profession.”
OK, now my head is spinning. ATEK has set opinions about these issues, but it hasn’t even held elections yet to get a group together to establish. . . set opinions about these issues.
Cart before the horse.
25/05/2009 at 12:49 pm Permalink
E.S.Blofeld: “There are a lot of other issues that then pop up once you follow this line of thinking. Have you contemplated how these other people might effect the situation as a whole?”
That was one of the major criticism of ATEK. They went after Immigration policy rather than employment policy. teachers make up a small proportion of the F-Visa community, and by applying the same Immigration checks across the F-spectrum, they were potentially affecting people who need not be affected. Equal Checks is not a bad idea, but targeting people for the checks based on visa status was a mistake.
Tony: You wrote that you support checks of all teachers, and then say you want them dropped. Which one is it?
“After reading the sweeping claims you make about F-series visa holders in the first debate round, I think you’re calling the kettle black here”
Read it again. My article was about my beliefs, and my situation. I made that perfectly clear in the opening paragraph and the concluding paragraph. For question 5 I echoed some of the concerns that others have in direct response to that question. I offered little opinion when answering it. I speak for myself.
As for being a conspiracy theorist… explain again why web pages have disappeared and information has been altered repeatedly whenever criticism arises. I’m sure if you repeat it enough times I may find it believable.
25/05/2009 at 1:45 pm Permalink
anti-atek gang: substantive discussion about the report? tic-toc, tic-toc, tic-toc . . .
25/05/2009 at 1:53 pm Permalink
>Tony: You wrote that you support checks of all teachers, and then say you want them
>dropped. Which one is it?
Having E-2 drug and HIV test dropped would mean there were equal checks for all, which I’ve been saying over and over again since the beginning. So, like I’ve always said: I support having drug and HIV tests dropped, and criminal background checks continue for teachers of children, because that’s what the Korean citizen public school teachers have to do (as mandated by the nat’l government).
>>“After reading the sweeping claims you make about F-series visa holders in the first debate
>>round, I think you’re calling the kettle black here”
>Read it again. My article was about my beliefs, and my situation. I made that perfectly clear
>in the opening paragraph and the concluding paragraph. For question 5 I echoed some of the
>concerns that others have in direct response to that question. I offered little opinion when
>answering it. I speak for myself.
This is you in the first round:
F-Visa holders feel the brunt of the scapegoating more than E-2 visa holders do. For the most part, E-2 visa holders plan to go home. We don’t! Our wives and our children suffer because of media representations here! We are not oblivious to it, and we want it to go away.
Speaking for yourself here? I don’t think you’re as “perfectly clear” as you think you are.
>As for being a conspiracy theorist… explain again why web pages have disappeared and
>information has been altered repeatedly whenever criticism arises. I’m sure if you repeat it
>enough times I may find it believable.
I didn’t say you were one of them…but you obviously think I was talking about you. Why is that?
25/05/2009 at 1:55 pm Permalink
I just thought of something else, Mike:
>As for being a conspiracy theorist… explain again why web pages have disappeared and
>information has been altered repeatedly whenever criticism arises. I’m sure if you repeat it
>enough times I may find it believable.
That would be a criticism leveled at ATEK, anyway, and Benjamin Wagner is not a part of ATEK, and never has been, so what gives?
25/05/2009 at 2:35 pm Permalink
“Having E-2 drug and HIV test dropped would mean there were equal checks for all, which I’ve been saying over and over again since the beginning. So, like I’ve always said: I support having drug and HIV tests dropped, and criminal background checks continue for teachers of children, because that’s what the Korean citizen public school teachers have to do (as mandated by the nat’l government).”
The policy of ATEK, and the basis of the equal checks for all campaig, was to extend the checks to all teachers. I would post the link… again… but then you would deny it… again. I see little point in discussing it any further with you.
Speaking for yourself here? I don’t think you’re as “perfectly clear” as you think you are.
Making a generalisation is somewhat different from claiming to speak for somebody. I thought you would have figured that out by now. It is the difference between saying (and this is purely an example, I am not quoting anybody here) “E-2 Visa holders are unhappy about this” and “The 20,000 E-2 Visa holders we represent are unhappy about this”. See the difference?
Now, answer the following question please:
Q: Was it a stated aim of ‘Equal Checks’ to extend criminal record and health checks (excluding HIV/Drugs tests) to F-Visa holders?
A: Yes/No (delete as appropriate)
If you choose to duck or dodge the question, don’t expect any further discussion from me – I will reserve my efforts for the official ATEK representatives.
25/05/2009 at 2:58 pm Permalink
>Q: Was it a stated aim of ‘Equal Checks’ to extend criminal record and health checks
>(excluding HIV/Drugs tests) to F-Visa holders?
A: No
It was a stated aim of ‘Equal Checks’ for all teachers (of children) to do the same checks as nationally mandated for Korean public school teachers. As this does not include a drug or HIV screen, we wanted those dropped for all teachers currently required to undergo them (E-2s).
This is what I’ve been saying all along.
25/05/2009 at 6:18 pm Permalink
After a long conversation with Benjamin Wagner, Matt has provided a background on Wagner’s report over at popular gusts, providing more of the answers people have been asking about 1. why publish this report instead of the one filed in February, 2. why the long delay? 3. who contacted whom when ATEK got involved with the report (though Wagner of course doesn’t know what happened at the ATEK meeting where they decided to throw their hats in), as well as a possible explanation for why at least one of the newspaper articles was so far off base as to create the conflicts we continue to see on these comment boards.
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2009/05/nhrck-report.html
25/05/2009 at 7:03 pm Permalink
Tony: “There is no reasonable basis to exempt Korean citizen teachers, ethnic Korean non-citizen teachers (F-4 visa holders), or non-citizen teachers married to Koreans (F-2 visa holders) from any precautionary measures that have been applied to E2 visa holders.”
That was from the ATEK ECFA campaign letter.
Am I really missing the point here? How can that NOT mean that ATEK eants them applied to F-visa holders?
25/05/2009 at 11:02 pm Permalink
Clamor, clamor, clamor. . . report! hey! you better! hey! demand! clamor! buzz. clang. its all in there! demand! you better. i always knew that . . . murmur, murmur
(Report delivered)
s i l e n c e . . . .
69 pages, you’d think there be something to talk about.
25/05/2009 at 11:14 pm Permalink
Tinpan: first of all, 69 pages is a lot to read,
second: smugness is counterproductive, and antithetical to the atmosphere I’ve tried to create on this comment board. Thanks for understanding.
26/05/2009 at 12:10 am Permalink
Howie – how is the report at odds with what is said in the paper?? It seems the report said cases like David Nam should that F-series need to get crim screened if they want to work with kids -just like E-2s.. Isn’t that what you are against?
Mike – you said: “Tony – You wrote that you support checks of all teachers, and then say you want them dropped. Which one is it?”
It’s both Mike. Criminal checks & academic checks = support. HIV & Drugs = dropped.
26/05/2009 at 12:37 am Permalink
>Tony: “There is no reasonable basis to exempt Korean citizen teachers, ethnic Korean
>non-citizen teachers (F-4 visa holders), or non-citizen teachers married to Koreans (F-2 visa
>holders) from any precautionary measures that have been applied to E2 visa holders.”
>That was from the ATEK ECFA campaign letter.
>Am I really missing the point here? How can that NOT mean that ATEK wants them applied
>to F-visa holders?
Because there is no reasonable basis to exempt all the other teachers from drug and HIV tests, yet they don’t have to do them, and will never be made to do them, the tests must be dropped.
I can see how that might be confusing when pulled out of the middle of the page, but look at the rest of the page: As an E-2 visa holder, I am subjected to a drug test and a medical examination including an HIV test. These searches are without grounds, violate my right to medical privacy, and are inconsistent with Korean law and international treaties to which Korea is a party. This constitutes unreasonable discrimination (on the basis of both medical history and national origin) and is a violation of my human rights. I am one of thousands of E-2 visa holders in Korea who are subjected to these unreasonable, unconstitutional searches. Please recommend to the government that they should strike down whatever laws, regulations, or mechanisms exist that create such unequal and unfair treatment.
In context, doesn’t that look a little different? Does it look like ATEK wants to continue having the checks for E-2s and the F-series folks to have them as well? Well, in case there is any lingering doubt, we don’t. We never have.
Really, look at the rest of the evidence: I’ve been saying since day one that we never wanted the F-series folks to have to do drug and HIV tests, and we want them dropped. Ben Wagner has written an editorial saying that his report doesn’t advocate for requiring F-series visa holders to have drug and HIV tests, and we publicly supported his report from day one. Now you can see the report. Nowhere does it say that F-series visa holders should have to do that. As a matter of fact, it does state that F-series visa holders have a legal right to their visas, so he’s giving you all ammunition in case your visa status is ever threatened by future legislation.
26/05/2009 at 1:46 am Permalink
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Korea has four choices;
1. Ignore the report
2. Add checks to Koreans and F visa people
3. Drop the checks for E-2 visa holders
4. Require the checks to for E-visas to be completed in your home country
The last three will satisfy Prof Wagner’s complaint.
Does anyone want to bet which one of these four is going to happen?
And if you think your school is going to pay an extra air-fair for you to fly back to the U.K., Canada, or the U.S. just so you can teach another year in Korea, you have another thing coming.
26/05/2009 at 2:53 am Permalink
Tony: First off, I want to say that the Wagner report is great. Really it is. And I have no ‘but’. I want to stay away from the accusations that it has changed, because they actually have very little to do with ATEK.
A lot of ATEK’s problems stem from the secretive nature of this report. Had I read this (or something like this) at the beginning of the equal checks campaign, my concerns would have been addressed. I can see that the report has very little to do with F-Visa holders, other than using them as a point of comparison alongside Korean nationals. I have no problem with that. I don’t agree with all of the content, or with the solution, but I do agree with the principle of it.
[Before your 2nd interview, I wrote a lengthy piece on the SeoulPodcast site stating that I thought HIV/AIDS checks should be carried out in the home countries as a condition of entry, and that the drugs tests should be dropped as Korea has no right to be policing other countries - though I would have no problem with random drugs tests for all teachers after they had been here for 6 months or more. I believe in conditions of entry, but think that once people have arrived they should not have to jump through the hoops of submitting paperwork from home every year].
The real issue has been the communications surrounding the report. We were told it would be made available a long time ago. Most people expected it to be released during the ECFA campaign, and many of us were disappointed when it wasn’t.
Then the media campaign started, and a number of articles have made this appear to be a fight between the E and F camps. I will concede that it was probably never the intent of Wagner or ATEK to provoke F-Visa holders, but that is what happened. The anger stems from the notion that F-Visa holders would be forced to submit paperwork from home every year, which would seriously hinder lifestyles here.
Can you (or ATEK) shed some light into the story ‘behind the scenes’ as this was going on? Was there an attitude of it being ‘a storm in a teacup’? Did ATEK apply any pressure on Wagner to release his report?
The last few months have been a nightmare for me. I have spent far too much time on this issue, and I am sure the ATEK board feel that way too. Was there any frustration that it could have been put to bed with the release of the report? If so, why did it take so long? This is not an attack on you personally, but ATEK’s communication was not very impressive when this was happening. The earlier release of this report would have helped you a lot more than allowing it to remain secret. I am just curious as to why this was allowed to happen.
ECFA was the reason I became “anti-ATEK”, and whilst it is unlikely I would have been a member, I would have certainly paid less attention to what was going on had I read this report earlier. As ATEK’s first campaign, it was a disaster from a PR standpoint. It was promised that people would see this report, and when that never happened, people got suspicious. Had this report been available, people would have been more forgiving on issues such as being “the voice of XXX teachers”, and perhaps given you the benefit of the doubt over the plagiarism issue.
Forget ATEK for a moment – You have personally paid a high price because of the secrecy surrounding this report. How do you feel about that?
26/05/2009 at 8:56 am Permalink
Mike Yates,
I see Benjamin Wagner continuously working for the fair treatment of foreigners in South Korea. He has a full-time job, and a life to upkeep, just like the rest of us. He works day and night, tirelessly doing independent research and translations. Much of this he does in his ‘free’ time, without pay.
So, as for your concern with the delay….. these things take time to produce and edit. There was no attempt to keep it ‘secret’.
26/05/2009 at 8:57 am Permalink
“Howie – how is the report at odds with what is said in the paper??”
The Joong Ang Daily report says the Wagner report complains of a discrepancy between the way KIS treats E2s on the one hand and F series visa holders and gyopos on the other.
The report released Sunday complains about the discrepancy between how foreigners as a whole are treated by all government authorities in Korea on the one hand and how Korean nationals are treated.
There are two possible explanations for that. The reporter got it wrong or Prof. Wagner’s report, which by his own admission has evolved over time, has changed since it was submitted to the NHRCK on Feb. 4th.
26/05/2009 at 9:53 am Permalink
“I see Benjamin Wagner continuously working for the fair treatment of foreigners in South Korea. He has a full-time job, and a life to upkeep, just like the rest of us. He works day and night, tirelessly doing independent research and translations.”–Andrea Vandom
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/137_45155.html
I’m confident I know where the chips are going to fall as a result of all this at this point. I will continue to monitor the events as they unfold, but the next comment I can see myself making is “I told you so.” Good luck ATEK.
26/05/2009 at 10:10 am Permalink
Howie, looks like Wagner is taking questions at Gusts. Seems like yours got asked.
TJ –
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Korea has four choices;
1. Ignore the report
2. Add checks to Koreans and F visa people
3. Drop the checks for E-2 visa holders
4. Require the checks to for E-visas to be completed in your home country
The last three will satisfy Prof Wagner’s complaint.
You are wrong about the last three satisfying the complaint.
As for #2, read the section called: “If an equal standard were in place, what should it require and what will the law allow?” p. 59-67.
As for #3, read “A legitimate state aim can limit rights” p.54-58.
As for #4, read p.38, footnote 133.
So even though you’ve said it before, maybe you could stop “saying it again” and say something that adds to the discussion.
26/05/2009 at 10:20 am Permalink
TJ:
>I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Korea has four choices;
>1. Ignore the report
>2. Add checks to Koreans and F visa people
>3. Drop the checks for E-2 visa holders
>4. Require the checks to for E-visas to be completed in your home country
>The last three will satisfy Prof Wagner’s complaint.
If you think the last three will satisfy his complaint, then it is obvious you haven’t read the report in its entirety. And don’t go back and just read Tinpan’s references. Read the whole report.
>And if you think your school is going to pay an extra air-fair for you to fly back to the U.K., >Canada, or the U.S. just so you can teach another year in Korea, you have another thing >coming.
I probably shouldn’t even mention this, as I’m arguing down a line started with a faulty premise in the first place, but an ENTRY requirement can’t be required of someone who has already entered, so your dire warning is irrelevant anyway.
26/05/2009 at 10:24 am Permalink
>There are two possible explanations for that. The reporter got it wrong or Prof. Wagner’s report,
>which by his own admission has evolved over time, has changed since it was submitted to the
>NHRCK on Feb. 4th.
That reporter, an intern that spent less than two months in Korea on that trip, got LOTS of things wrong. She promised to call us back so we could fact check the article before it went to press, then didn’t. We had to call the editor-in-chief to try and track her down before it went to press, and we didn’t get to her. I personally was very angry. I’m not going to speak for Professor Wanger.
26/05/2009 at 11:41 am Permalink
>Tony: First off, I want to say that the Wagner report is great. Really it is. And I have no ‘but’. I
>want to stay away from the accusations that it has changed, because they actually have very
>little to do with ATEK.
Glad to hear that. I think that people accusing Benjamin Wagner of changing the report (not you, Mike) aren’t thinking about the fact that they are addressing an upstanding member of the academic community with a impeccable professional reputation. You’re calling a law professor who has put in hundreds of hours of his own, unremunerated time a liar when you say you want him to prove the original report is the same by releasing it. That’s irresponsible at best and slanderous at worst. I mean really, a law professor submits a report to the government, then later releases another version to the public with more information, and states publicly that it contains all the material from the original report. If that was a lie, he’d be sacrificing his credibility, and possibly his career. And for what? How does he benefit from the supposed deception? It just doesn’t make sense.
>The real issue has been the communications surrounding the report. We were told it would
>be made available a long time ago. Most people expected it to be released during the ECFA
>campaign, and many of us were disappointed when it wasn’t.
As was I.
>Then the media campaign started, and a number of articles have made this appear to be a
>fight between the E and F camps. I will concede that it was probably never the intent of
>Wagner or ATEK to provoke F-Visa holders, but that is what happened. The anger stems
>from the notion that F-Visa holders would be forced to submit paperwork from home every
>year, which would seriously hinder lifestyles here.
Right. And the angry ones wouldn’t believe me when I clarified.
>Can you (or ATEK) shed some light into the story ‘behind the scenes’ as this was going on?
>Was there an attitude of it being ‘a storm in a teacup’? Did ATEK apply any pressure on
>Wagner to release his report?
I’ll tell the whole story in a blog post shortly, just because you asked.
>The last few months have been a nightmare for me. I have spent far too much time on this
>issue, and I am sure the ATEK board feel that way too. Was there any frustration that it could
> have been put to bed with the release of the report? If so, why did it take so long? This is not
>an attack on you personally, but ATEK’s communication was not very impressive when this
>was happening. The earlier release of this report would have helped you a lot more than
>allowing it to remain secret. I am just curious as to why this was allowed to happen.
The report was shown to me in confidence, so it wasn’t really at my discretion on whether or not to release it. This will be explained further in the blog post.
>ECFA was the reason I became “anti-ATEK”, and whilst it is unlikely I would have been a
>member, I would have certainly paid less attention to what was going on had I read this
>report earlier. As ATEK’s first campaign, it was a disaster from a PR standpoint. It was
>promised that people would see this report, and when that never happened, people got
>suspicious. Had this report been available, people would have been more forgiving on issues
>such as being “the voice of XXX teachers”, and perhaps given you the benefit of the doubt
>over the plagiarism issue.
This is likely going to bother some people, but I don’t think ECFA was a disaster. The people that think it is are only looking at it from the E-series vs. F-series angle. I’d tell you more about what ECFA did for ATEK, but I’d probably be accused of bragging, or get pegged as smug or something. So maybe that would be a better conversation for email. I don’t think I have your email address. If you email me I’ll tell you what the benefits of ECFA were for ATEK.
>Forget ATEK for a moment – You have personally paid a high price because of the secrecy
>surrounding this report. How do you feel about that?
As the ATEK board can attest, I’m not like a lot of other people*. My goals, my perspective, my priorities are very different from 99% of the populace. I don’t think I paid as high a price as my detractors think. The goal was to create a foreign teacher’s association that would survive and help teachers, and while we aren’t 100% there yet, its going to happen, and soon. The first national council reps are going to be recognized very, very soon (Kyungsangnam-do’s chapter will be turning in its completed chapter application within a week).
But you asked me to forget about ATEK and talk about the price that I paid because of the secrecy of the report. Couple things come to mind. The Chinese say “If you stand up straight, do not fear a crooked shadow.” I’m a Buddhist and I believe in karma, which is to say that I know where I owe my karmic debts, and I don’t owe any for internet smut. I didn’t do anything wrong, and regardless of what other people think, I know that. A person can’t have their dignity taken away, they can only give it away. I have mine. The goals for ATEK were for ATEK, not for me. I want ATEK to be the best organization it can be, and I am extremely excited to see Greg working. He’s better than me. That doesn’t make me jealous; it makes me happy. I ended up doing PR because I was the guy on the board that knew the most about it. I wish the Board had found Greg on day one. Then I could have concentrated on what I’m good at: deploying a national organization in such a way that it fairly represents the major constituencies and allows for discussion between them, has internal controls (checks and balances), and has the ability to take action in a number of directions, at the will of its representative leadership. Phase one of that is complete: the framework exists. Phase two will be establishing both the culture of the organization and setting the precedents for how things will run. This is teaching the freshman reps how to make motions, appeal decisions, what to refer to a commission and what to take from a commission. How to direct the officers to take actions, or stop them from taking actions. What constitutes ethical and unethical internal communication. Many other considerations that once they understand, they will teach to those who succeed them. So far, I’m the only person affiliated with ATEK (that I know of) that has the skillset to set this up so that ATEK will hit the ground running when it seats the national council.
I do not feel I have paid a price because of the secrecy of the report. Everyone who attempted to exact a toll from me had choices. The report not being released didn’t make anyone dig into my past, post accusations of writing internet smut or past illegal acts, post the name and phone number of my employer with an exhortation to call and get me fired, send me emails threatening me with blackmail (“If you ever get involved with ATEK again, I’m going to tell your boss, immigration, etc. what you’ve done, you sicko.”), or do any of the other things that were done. Those were choices made by individuals. They’ve all got their own karma/God/whatever to face, and mostly hope they get mercy from whatever higher power that is, because they are mostly acting to protect something precious that they think is being threatened.
What price do I feel I have paid because of the secrecy of the report? None. I had a copy and could have released it at any time. But by doing so, I certainly would have paid a price, one I was not willing to pay. This will be explained in the post regarding the report that I’ll be putting up shortly. Sorry for the “teaser” but I want all the important information in one place so people reading it don’t have an incomplete picture.
Now, all the above is not to say that leaving the ATEK board is meaningless to me, or that the organization is just as good without me as with me. I think what happened has certainly caused some difficulties both for the Board and for me. I that I had an important role that hasn’t been filled yet, regarding getting the new national council conducting business.
So, if the question is reframed as: “You have personally paid a high price because of the choices you’ve made while working with ATEK. How do you feel about that?” My answer is:
There is a story attributed to Jack Welch (former CEO of General Electric), where a journalist is interviewing him for a Wall Street Journal article. The journalist says “What have been the keys to your success?” Jack looks at her and says “I can sum it up in two words: good decisions.” The journalist responded, “Well, yeah, but I guess then the question is: how does one come to know which are the good decisions?” “One word,” Welch replies, “experience.” The journalist says “Okay, but really, that’s sort of an oversimplication, don’t you think? How do you get that kind of experience?” Welch smiles. “Two words: bad decisions.”
I made some good decisions with ATEK, and I made some bad ones. As I’m not a PR professional, I think I did better than most people would be expected to do the first year in a job like this. ATEK is here. It is getting over its hurdles and moving forward. We’ve done some good things, and there are some things we could have done better, and those things will be done better, now that I’m out of that position. And that makes me happy.
*This is obvious from the fact that I’ve spent 7,000,000 won getting ATEK off the ground, with no real expectation of ever seeing any of that money again, and wasn’t me just reducing savings by 25%…I live check to check because of my work with ATEK, and I’m okay with that. Not many other people would be willing to do that in most circumstances, and NOBODY else was willing to do it in this circumstance. The take away is not “I’m great,” but “I’m different.” Some think I’m nuts. That’s okay too.
26/05/2009 at 12:30 pm Permalink
“I think that people accusing Benjamin Wagner of changing the report (not you, Mike) aren’t thinking about the fact that they are addressing an upstanding member of the academic community with a impeccable professional reputation.”
This is completely and utterly false. No one is accusing him of lying. If you’re followed most recent events at all, you’ll see that Prof. Wagner himself concedes that the report changed as the NHRCK process continued. I resent the suggestion that we are in any way impugning his character by asking to see the report as it stood back in February. We are merely trying get to the bottom of why the Joong Ang Daily said one thing when the report apparently said something else. If the Joong Ang Daily report, which has driven my interest in this matter from the day it was published on Feb. 5 was inaccurate, that is, for me at least, the end of the matter. Don’t you want that as well or do you just enjoy being angry?
26/05/2009 at 12:34 pm Permalink
Howie – that question is addressed by Wagner on the Gusts post.
26/05/2009 at 12:41 pm Permalink
yes, I know. I’m the one asking it.
26/05/2009 at 1:56 pm Permalink
> No one is accusing him of lying.
Uh, yeah, people are. pocariboy73 on Dave’s said “Like Howie, I too would like to see the ORIGINAL REPORT, not one that may have been doctored up to appeal to popular opinion 2 months after the fact.”
He edited the post yesterday to replace “doctored up” with “edited,” but I didn’t notice that until after I’d posted.
26/05/2009 at 2:06 pm Permalink
Tony,
Nice to see you’re back lurking away on the thread at Dave’s. I seem to recall you saying you would never go back to that thread again.
Let’s wait until we see the ORIGINAL REPORT before the word “edited” or “doctored up” is best appropriate. Until then, either word is fine with me.
26/05/2009 at 2:16 pm Permalink
OK, everybody. Let’s keep this comment thread productive, and not get into the personal digs and stuff, thanks.
btw Pocariboy: the thread Tony swore never to revisit is the one that was pulled, not the one where people are currently posting.
26/05/2009 at 2:36 pm Permalink
Seems to be real questions being asked and answered over at the Gusts of Popular Feeling site.
Howie, are you fred over at Gusts? If so, nice discussion on the real issues.
26/05/2009 at 2:38 pm Permalink
Ok, anyways, I’d like to give Wagner the benefit of the doubt before coming down too harsh on him. I do appreciate that he made the Report public, however, I really wish t had of been the ORIGINAL rather than the “new” version. Regardless, it’s nice to see it posted and I tend to agree with most things in it.
Anyways, Thanks Rob for the clarification.
26/05/2009 at 5:15 pm Permalink
Ok, I just underlined this one:
“The government is often focused on the pro forma element of the requirement qua requirement to the exclusion of its substantive purpose. There is a preoccupation with shiny gold apostilles, the raised seals of embassy affidavits, or any document bearing the semblance of officialdom, and a relative indifference to the value of the information conveyed therein. As a result, teachers find themselves subject to background checks of wildly varying scrutiny and burdensomeness and of dubious value. In other words, the government has no idea what an academic or criminal background checks should really entail (and has no particular interest in finding out), it just knows it wants one. However, until this perspective is
corrected, it won’t matter how many requirements the government creates for teachers:
children and schools will continue to go unprotected.”
Truth, that.
26/05/2009 at 5:16 pm Permalink
Somebody please tell me again in plain simple language why Prof. Wagner won’t release the ORIGINAL REPORT, as filed back in February to the NHRCK, to the general public for us all to see?
I’m sorry to say, but until the original is produced, speculation that something of interest might have been added or deleted remains in the air.
Like it or not, that’s just the way it is…..
26/05/2009 at 5:25 pm Permalink
Because the point of the report was never about proving to you that ATEK or Wagner was legitimate, it was about protecting non-citizens. To me, at least, it makes sense to see what the NHRCK is seeing when it comes to non-citizen rights. And thats what we have.
I understand that you are personally invested in winning a fight started in Dave’s, but perhaps that could be let go of for the good of the non-citizen community.
Why not look at the report that’s been released and suggest how it can be improved. Are there any special protections for F-series that you would like to mentioned? Why not work together to do that? After all the report doesn’t support ATEK, it’s not an ATEK report.
26/05/2009 at 6:37 pm Permalink
Back in February, ATEK supported the ORIGINAL Report and had 100′s of foreigners sign petitions in support of the ECFA campaign which was highly based on Wagners ORIGINAL report. That is the Report which the NHRCK originally received and many of us have been patiently waiting to see for many months now.
Although the edited version is quite nice and I support much of it, I’d really like to see the original version to compare for myself if there are any differences?
Come on now, is that too much to ask?
27/05/2009 at 11:13 am Permalink
“Howie, are you fred over at Gusts? If so, nice discussion on the real issues.”
That would be me.
29/05/2009 at 2:09 pm Permalink
To Mike and others who contacted the NHRCK regarding the Wagner Report:
Now that you folks have read it, and ostensibly no longer oppose it (c.f. Mike’s the Wagner report is great. Really it is. And I have no ‘but’.” comment), would those of you who wrote the NHRCK or filed complaints be willing to withdraw them? They haven’t ruled yet (as far as I know), so there’s still time.
29/05/2009 at 7:13 pm Permalink
If ATEK wants anyone to retract something, I’m sure THEY will ask.
29/05/2009 at 7:31 pm Permalink
I never filed any complaints about the Wagner report, or any complaints with the NHRCK. My complaint was filed with the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in Seoul, and concerns illegal fundraising activities. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding about that.
29/05/2009 at 8:32 pm Permalink
“To Mike and others who contacted the NHRCK regarding the Wagner Report:
Now that you folks have read it, and ostensibly no longer oppose it (c.f. Mike’s the Wagner report is great. Really it is. And I have no ‘but’.” comment), would those of you who wrote the NHRCK or filed complaints be willing to withdraw them? They haven’t ruled yet (as far as I know), so there’s still time.”
No way I’m not withdrawing my complaints. Not until I see the ORIGINAL REPORT as filed in February uploaded on the internet, will I EVER consider withdrawing my complaints. The EDITED version is quite nice, BUT that was NOT the one which ATEK supported during the ECFA campaign.
If Prof. Wagner puts the original report online, and it does not “throw the F holders under the bus” then I will gladly withdraw my complains. I’m still confused as to why he won’t just do that? Aren’t you?????
Until then, don’t count on it Tony.
29/05/2009 at 8:40 pm Permalink
Pocariboy 73.
While you are free to have whatever ideas you choose, your belligerent tone is unwelcome here. After the way you treated Benjamin Wagner on the Popular Gusts thread, step carefully at The Hub Of Sparkle. This board will not devolve into the back and forth I’ve seen you participate in on other sites, and innuendoes about Benjamin Wagner’s character and honesty WILL get you banned here.
You were invited respectfully to meet Prof. Wagner in person and go over the document, which you declined. You provoked him into making comments he later regretted (as evidenced by his removing them from the thread), and frankly, given the way you’ve been behaving, I don’t care what they say about me at Dave’s if I ban you.
Be respectful. I’ve had enough.
This is your official notice.
The Admin.
29/05/2009 at 9:30 pm Permalink
With all due respect Rob, I do believe I have acted decently on your site considering the emotional and personal matter we are dealing with. The questions I have asked, seemed not to be answered so I asked again and again. Evidently, the tone of my emails got stronger and the choice of my words were at times possibly wrong. However, there is no edit function on your site, so what gets submitted unfortunately stays that way. The dangers of emails and postings.
I started off very politey on the website where the Report is posted, but after I accused by Prof. Wagner as being some “13 yr old sole-bread winner from Tebaca” because I wouldn’t reveal my real name, I got a little bit upset but I don’t think I went overboard, nor does the Blog site owner. All I wanted to see was the Original Report posted online. A simple request, I thought.
I appreciated the invitation from Prof. Wagner to visit his office and talk about the Reports, but quite frankly, as I said before, I have absolutley no time to travel there. Nor will my boss give my time off.
I don’t think it was I who provoked Prof. Wagner. If you feel it was, then I’m sorry you feel that way. My intention was not to provoke him, instead it was to encourage him to release the Original Report.
I too have been attacked on several message boards. I know how it feels and I don’t particularily like it.
In any event, I respect your “warning” and apologize to Prof. Wagner and whoever else I have offended due to the inappropriate tone and choice of words in some of my posts.
I’m sorry.
29/05/2009 at 9:44 pm Permalink
TJ: If they ask, will you answer, instead of dancing around the question as you’re doing with me?
29/05/2009 at 9:53 pm Permalink
Thanks for the apology, Pocariboy. It’s appreciated. Seriously.
Yeah. Emotions are running high right now.
On the other hand, I have a copy of Wagner’s February complaint in my hands right now, and I’m about to write up a summary of the report available at Popular Gusts, as well as a careful comparison between it and the February version, and I got my hands on it and the first report he wrote back in 2008, by meeting Ben in person and dealing with him respectfully. I don’t know if you’ve been e-mailing him, but I bet a polite e-mail signed with your real name — no public declaration necessary, just a little respectful man-to-man — would make a world of difference.
Rob
29/05/2009 at 10:05 pm Permalink
I’m pretty sure this is the ATEK discussion thread. Rob, you have done a great job moderating this thread to date. I encourage you to continue to keep posters addressing the issues and not individual posters as some here starting to do.
29/05/2009 at 10:25 pm Permalink
Point taken, TJ. Tony, kindly also refrain from taking personal digs at other commenters.
30/05/2009 at 3:54 pm Permalink
I wouldn’t call a question a “dig,” just because it was directed at a person and not ATEK. This is a “discussion,” right? I’d like to know if the people who have filed complaints plan to withdraw them. Those who don’t wish to answer can simply not reply.
Rob, if the rules of this forum are that you can ONLY address questions to ATEK and not anyone else, I think that should be more clearly stated. If something in-between is the case, I think you need to clarify.
30/05/2009 at 11:51 pm Permalink
Tony: that wasn’t the dig. That’s a fair question: for those who have been satisfied with the Wagner report, I hope they have taken action accordingly. The dig was this one:
“TJ: If they ask, will you answer, instead of dancing around the question as you’re doing with me?”
Go ahead and address each other directly, or address ATEK, but I really don’t want to see this comment thread get personal, between people and organizations, or between people and people.
Yeah, I’m on a hair trigger right now cf here and here both…I don’t mean to step on toes, though, if everybody’s communicating in good faith.
31/05/2009 at 12:57 am Permalink
Withdrawn. I’ll rephrase:
TJ, if ATEK asks, will you answer?
31/05/2009 at 8:36 pm Permalink
The only thing harder than following the debate is following where the debate is taking place. It would appear that Prof. Wagner has chosen here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12946845&postID=7772657630214888195&page=1
I must say that his candor in answering question is a breath of fresh air, compared to the stonewalling tactics employed by ATEK.
31/05/2009 at 10:30 pm Permalink
TJ, I answered a TON of questions, including yours. Some chose not to believe me when I said (ad infinitum) that ATEK never advocated drug and HIV checks for F-series holders, and neither did Wagner’s report. Turned out that was true! I said it so much that Rob and other bloggers were writing and talking about how ATEK was being misunderstood. But angry people aren’t calmed by answers that aren’t what they are looking for, whether they are the truth or not. As Paul Simon sang “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” So you chose to believe the newspapers instead of the SOURCE the newspapers were writing about. Point in case: Wagner writes an editorial where he clearly states that neither he nor the report ever advocated for drug and HIV checks for F-series holders, but that still wasn’t enough. Would you characterize that as “stonewalling” too? Because he got characterized as worse than that even though he was telling the truth all along.
Lo and behold, you find out the report that ATEK supported with the ECFA campaign never even mentions drug and HIV checks. And F-series people are now starting to obliquely admit that they got carried away (pocariboy73 on Gusts: “our imaginations began to run loose…”). That’s a start, but to say “ATEK did very little to quell the fire they lit beneath our families feet.” (Which he goes on to say) is wrong. THERE WAS NO FIRE. My question is: What is it that could have “quelled the [perceived] fire?” We couldn’t release the report and the folks that had already chosen not to believe us weren’t really reachable.
01/06/2009 at 1:23 am Permalink
Tony,
I think the point T-J is making is that you are not ATEK. Unless there has been some super-secret meeting that has installed you a person able to speak on behalf of ATEK, or some election that nobody has bothered to mention, you are not ATEK. Don’t get me wrong, you are doing a better job than they are, but you are not an official spokesperson for ATEK. In 100 comments, not once has an official spokesperson for ATEK spoken. That is stonewalling.
01/06/2009 at 9:53 am Permalink
Tony, Tony, Tony…..first let me very clear with you, I represent nobody but myself. My choice of words “our imaginations began to run loose” was my mistake and if there was and edit button I would change have changed that to “I”. As with you and who you continue to represent, it becomes obviously clear the more you post – since no other ATEK founding members are participating in this thread or the other you mention of. Please Tony come clean with us and admit you still play an important role in ATEK. The truth, as you should know first-hand by now, does eventually catch up with you.
During the ECFA campaign, your PR skills (or lack there of) confused and bewildered many of us (sorry I) do to several reasons. Allow me to list just a few:
1)The ATEK webpage which changed its information to “cover its tracks” over and over again. Is that anyway to build trust and confidence?
2)The Wagner Report which was initially filed as “Open” but then changed to “Closed” once we (sorry I) wished to view it. Is that transparency?
3)The now deleted threads on Dave’s ESL which you chose to rarely answer questions directly but instead ‘cleverly’ dance around them using semantics. In retrospect, not very clever was it?
And as far as proving to me that there was no “fire beneath our feet”, I’ll happily acknowledge that once I have the opportunity of viewing in the comfort of my own home Prof. Wagner’s Original Report as filed to the NHRCK in February which ATEK so quickly and carelessly rode upon the coat tails of without allowing any of us (sorry I) to view first.
01/06/2009 at 12:00 pm Permalink
>Tony,
>I think the point T-J is making is that you are not ATEK. Unless there has been some super-
>secret meeting that has installed you a person able to speak on behalf of ATEK, or some
>election that nobody has bothered to mention, you are not ATEK. Don’t get me wrong, you
>are doing a better job than they are, but you are not an official spokesperson for ATEK.
I was responding to a comment left on another blog that accused ATEK of stonewalling over the past year…which is primarily during my tenure as Communications Director.
>In 100 comments, not once has an official spokesperson for ATEK spoken. That is
>stonewalling.
No, it isn’t. Its a Communications Director who has chosen his channels, and this thread happens to not be one of them. I think it is supremely arrogant to say “Because you won’t come to me to answer my questions in my preferred channel, you’re obviously hiding something/not interested in teachers/stonewalling/et cetera.” The Communications Director isn’t omnipresent. It takes time and energy to monitor and answer questions in a place like this, and he’s got a lot going on, between helping with organizing the chapters, the swine flu, the guy who needs 10,000,000 won so the hospital doesn’t kick him out, learning the ins and outs of his job, which he’s still doing and everything else he and ATEK have going on. If you email that guy a question, and he refuses to answer it, then okay, I’ll agree that he’s stonewalling.
>Tony, Tony, Tony…..first let me very clear with you, I represent nobody but myself. My choice
> of words “our imaginations began to run loose” was my mistake and if there was and edit
>button I would change have changed that to “I”.
You can always post a correction. Doing your own is guaranteed. Korea Times, not so much.
>As with you and who you continue to represent, it becomes obviously clear the more you
>post – since no other ATEK founding members are participating in this thread or the other
>you mention of. Please Tony come clean with us and admit you still play an important role in
>ATEK.
What I represent is a year’s experience working with ATEK. I don’t represent ATEK and they’ll be happy to say the same. I don’t play an important role in ATEK. I occasionally send them emails when I think they should or shouldn’t do something, and they respond substantively less than half the time. I have little idea what they’ve got going on right now, and they are making little effort to clue me in, which is appropriate since I’m no longer on the board or an officer. I learned about the effort regarding swine flu quarantine victims and that sick guy with the 10,000,000 won medical bill at the same time as the rest of you. Last week I called Greg and said “You know the donation drop off box that ratemyhagwon.com is doing in Seoul? That’s a great idea, but I’m out in the provinces and I’d like to donate too. Why doesn’t ATEK set one up in Busan or organize them nationwide through the chapters?” Greg said “That’s a good idea.” I haven’t heard anything about it since (either through internal or external channels). That’s not a dig, because I don’t think its because they don’t care. More likely its because they’re busy. It takes energy and work to set something like that up, and I don’t know if they’ve got the human resources to make it happen.
>The truth, as you should know first-hand by now, does eventually catch up with you.
I resent the implication and it isn’t topical anyway. Stop it.
>During the ECFA campaign, your PR skills (or lack there of) confused and bewildered many
>of us (sorry I) do to several reasons. Allow me to list just a few:
>1)The ATEK webpage which changed its information to “cover its tracks” over and over
>again. Is that anyway to build trust and confidence?
The ATEK webpage NEVER changed information to “cover its tracks,” and that was explained, quite clearly. Do you even remember what the explanation was? Because if you don’t, then that’s an example of where our messages were tossed aside as lies (like 2/3rds of our explanations of what was going on with ECFA, which turned out to be true). If you’re not going to believe us, why ask for an explanation? That’s like saying “We’ll give him a fair trial before we hang him.” I think that some people had already settled on a reality and all they would accept was for ATEK to cop to it.
Maybe Jason Thomas, who has been hailed as a “straight arrow,” “perfect for ATEK,” and the “kind of leadership ATEK needs now,” will come on and explain this further, since he was the webmaster. We never tried to hide or cover anything up. The take-home I got is that when credibility is called into question, you need to start issuing releases stating why you make site changes, else people think there is a cover up. I mean really, come on, after the first time we changed the site and people posted the old info from caches, do you really think we decided that was a viable method to obfuscate or erase information, and did it again with the idea that “Oh, we got caught last time, but next time it will be okay.” ???
>2)The Wagner Report which was initially filed as “Open” but then changed to “Closed” once
>we (sorry I) wished to view it. Is that transparency?
That isn’t what happened, and even if it was, that wasn’t ATEK. Professor Wagner filed the report as Open/Non-Confidential, and the NHRCK chose not to release it when asked. It wasn’t a move on ATEK’s or Professor Wagner’s parts, and that was explained by both ATEK and Professor Wagner. But again, tossed aside.
>3)The now deleted threads on Dave’s ESL which you chose to rarely answer questions
>directly but instead ‘cleverly’ dance around them using semantics. In retrospect, not very
>clever was it?
When I accused TJ of the same it was called a “dig.” Is it okay now? We’ll proceed as if it is, as we wait for The Judge’s ruling. If you go back through cached pages or whatever and dig as much of that thread up as you can, and read it with the assumption that The Wagner Report said exactly what we say it said, it doesn’t look like “dancing.”
>And as far as proving to me that there was no “fire beneath our feet”, I’ll happily acknowledge
> that once I have the opportunity of viewing in the comfort of my own home Prof. Wagner’s
>Original Report as filed to the NHRCK in February which ATEK so quickly and carelessly
>rode upon the coat tails of without allowing any of us (sorry I) to view first.
Being shown to us in confidence wasn’t our choice to release or not release; it was Wagner’s and the NHRCK’s. Please understand that. That’s already been explored elsewhere. If you read the complaints that people sent in to the NHRCK, none of them say “I support Benjamin Wagner’s report,” but give their own independent explanation of what they are complaining about, which happens to be based on his report, but the idea that we told a bunch of people to support a document they hadn’t read is a flat out lie. The ECFA Campaign page doesn’t even mention Benjamin Wagner or his report.
Here it the complaint people filed in full, in case you want to verify this:
*”rest of the population” includes Koreans working at hagwons, who are not tested, and those public school teachers who are not tested.
**For clarity’s sake, I should have added “And neither should E-2s.”
***This is directly from the Marmot’s Hole interview with Benjamin Wagner.
01/06/2009 at 12:29 pm Permalink
Thank you Tony for the clarifications. Things are starting to come together for me. We don’t all march to the beat of the same drummer, do we
01/06/2009 at 12:41 pm Permalink
Tony: No, it isn’t. Its a Communications Director who has chosen his channels, and this thread happens to not be one of them. I think it is supremely arrogant to say “Because you won’t come to me to answer my questions in my preferred channel, you’re obviously hiding something/not interested in teachers/stonewalling/et cetera.”
I never actually said that, though I am sure you would consider me arrogant if I chose to take part in an ATEK debate and then refused to answer questions. Believe it or not, this is not my preferred channel – I would much rather have a public channel that ATEK were willing to commit to. This is a channel that ATEK decided to use when they agreed to take part in this ‘debate’. Much like when you were running the show and initially used Dave’s to promote their agenda, ATEK were willing to use this forum for self-promotion, yet they refuse to answer questions from the serfs.
01/06/2009 at 12:44 pm Permalink
Oh… for the record: I object to your hostile tone when you address me as arrogant and I feel it goes against the HOS code of conduct. More objectivity, less digs please.
01/06/2009 at 12:52 pm Permalink
I am hopeful that when Tom Rainey-Smith’s second article comes out, it WILL address the questions that have been posed here. I hope that the reason for ATEK’s lack of participation on this thread is so that they can answer all these questions in a single place, which would be more convenient than requiring those interested to browse through over 100 comments. As communication channels go, that sounds like a good one to me. I am sure ATEK is following this comment thread, and hopefully their next statement will be complete enough to satisfy those participating in this discussion.
Tony: thanks for posting the text of that letter.
As usual, let’s avoid characterizing the people involved in this discussion, or guessing at motivations behind their actions, as that runs the risk of devolving into “did too” “did not” level discourse. Once the discussion reaches that point, nobody reads further except those who are commenting directly, and the comment board loses its helpfulness to the community at large.
01/06/2009 at 10:01 pm Permalink
Tony Hellmann>>”If you read the complaints that people sent in to the NHRCK, none of them say “I support Benjamin Wagner’s report,” but give their own independent explanation of what they are complaining about, which happens to be based on his report, but the idea that we told a bunch of people to support a document they hadn’t read is a flat out lie. The ECFA Campaign page doesn’t even mention Benjamin Wagner or his report.”
Let’s take this a piece at a time as it really gets to the heart of ATEK’s problems.
1: If you read the complaints, none of them say “I support Benjamin Wagner’s report”>>>This is pure conjecture on your part. You have no idea what people wrote in their complaints. You provided a suggestion for people to use and encouraged them to complain.
2: but give their own independent explanation of what they are complaining about, which is based on his report>>>How can they base an independent explanation of anything based on something that no one read?
3:the idea that we told a bunch of people to support a document they hadn’t read is a flat out lie>>>Press release from ATEK’s web site by Tony Hellmann:
“Seoul, Feb 4 – The Association for Teachers of English in Korea (ATEK) announced the launch of a campaign against discriminatory visa requirements to coincide with the filing of a related report at the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) Wednesday.”
So, the campaign was launch to “coincide with” but not support the report?
4:The ECFA Campaign page doesn’t even mention Benjamin Wagner or his report.”>>>See above.
02/06/2009 at 1:44 am Permalink
I want to apologize for any part I played in stressing anyone out, of any visa category.
Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture (both past and present) there are a couple conclusions that I have arrived at:
1) If I was an F-series holder, I would have been alarmed by what the media reported regarding the Equal Checks for All Campaign. You all had a valid right to be concerned. No buts about it.
2) If I could go back, there are a few things I would have done differently. For one, I would have called it the “Forced Drug And HIV Checks Aren’t Reasonable” campaign. A lot less ambiguous. When putting it together, I thought equality was something everyone could stand behind. I was blind-sided by the way the message was relayed through the media. That was the hardest lesson learned.
3) This was a complex issue with a steep learning curve. It was hard and time consuming to get the issues right, but easy and convenient for the Korean media to get them wrong. I submit that the gestalt of “foreigner against foreigner,” and specifically the E-2 versus F-series fight had already been constructed by the media long before any of us came to it. It had already been framed and we stepped right into the picture. But I’ve done some thinking and decided to step out. I don’t want to argue or fight over this anymore.
But please don’t think I’m stopping out of exasperation: far from it. I just realized something.
Recently I was having an argument with a friend who said something about “disagreement among the expat community”. And started saying, “the problem with the community is . . .” And that’s when it hit me. There is a community. We might be in disagreement about some things, but somehow I get the feeling we’ll work it out.
You all have already made things better for yourselves and other foreigners in Korea. We’ve all (those both for and against) been engaged at a level that is unprecedented for foreigners in Korea. I hope we have the prescience and wisdom to keep that going, to improve upon how far we’ve come as a community, both in organization and in our ability to raise the level of discourse to a place we can constructively engage with the powers that be.