Liberal Japan

Recently the The Supreme Court of Japan ruled that a piano teacher had to play Kimi ga Yo during school ceremonies. (Link to Japan Times article about this.) This is a very controversial issue.

The editors of Yomiuri Shimbun endorsed the decision saying:

Tuesday’s ruling found the order in question constitutional, stating that the woman had an obligation to abide by the order issued by her superior as a government employee, and that the Education, Science and Technology Ministry’s curriculum guidelines and other school-related regulations require teachers to provide students proper education about the national flag and anthem. We find the ruling reasonable.

The Asahi Shimbun voiced concerns stating:

One of the five justices of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court, which heard the case, voiced a dissenting opinion. “Coercing a person to cooperate with the singing of ‘Kimigayo’ at a public ceremony constitutes direct oppression against the person’s belief and creed,” the justice said. There must be many people who support this opinion.
The ruling is worrisome because it could be interpreted by the education ministry and the education board that the Supreme Court supports forced singing of “Kimigayo” and the hoisting of the Hinomaru national flag at school ceremonies. What needs to be made clear is that its decision only concerns piano accompaniment. It says nothing about the constitutionality of compelling teachers and children to stand up and look in the direction of the national flag and sing the song.

The Japan Times spoke out against the decision:

The ruling fails to properly consider the teacher’s spiritual pain caused by the principal’s order. It may lead many boards of education to think that they have a free hand in controlling school teachers who express dissenting views against singing Kimigayo while facing the “Hinomaru” national flag at school ceremonies …In refusing to obey the principal’s order to play the piano for Kimigayo, the Hino music teacher said the anthem is linked to Japan’s aggression in the past against other Asian countries; therefore, she would not sing it or play the piano accompaniment. She also said she could not let children sing the anthem without teaching them the history behind it … Clearly the top court gives priority to maintaining traditional custom and public order at school as embodied in the entrance ceremony. But it fails to consider whether forcing a form of expression — even if it is not verbal — on a person is tantamount to imposing related thoughts or ideas on that person.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Tokiyasu Fujita correctly pointed out that the piano accompaniment caused extreme pain to the teacher in light of her own beliefs and that the main point of the lawsuit should be whether coercion should be allowed in spite of such pain.
With the help of the recorded tape, the ceremony proceeded without a hitch, although some parents may have been displeased with the absence of a piano accompaniment. This prompts us to question why the education board was so intent on punishing the teacher even after the principal learned of her view on Kimigayo.

I’ve been aware of the Kimi ga Yo issue for quite some time. However, I wasn’t aware of the details of the recent ruling until the issue came up in NBR’s Japan forum recently. A poster there argued that if one viewed the situation with the eyes of an employer one had to admit the problematic nature of an employee voicing issues of conscience and then not doing their job. If the Supreme Court were to allow an employee to be exempt from some portion of their work due to an issue of conscience, this would be like opening Pandora’s proverbial box.

My response was to state the following:

I think one aspect of this that needs to be considered is that we are talking about teachers at public institutions of education. We aren’t talking about professional piano players.
–
There is a very similar comparison that can be made with “the pledge of allegiance” in America. The pledge contains the phrase, “one nation under god”. Some teachers might feel it is a betrayal of their own moral system to say these words.
–
Why should teachers be asked to betray their own moral system in front of their students? For the good of the nation? Aren’t the teachers guaranteed the right of having their own religious view?
–
Some teachers are being asked to play an accompaniment, others are being asked to sing and look at the Japanese flag. Many of those who would prefer not to perform these acts, are suffering greatly. Here’s a link to a recent article in the Japan Times:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070118f2.html
–
While I am on this topic, another issue of comparison with America would be evolution versus creationism in school. Should a science teacher have to teach “intelligent design” even if he thinks the theory is obviously false and merely an attempt to inject a religious agenda into school? Or worse, should a science teacher have to teach about “creationism”, especially in the case where he rejects it?
–
This can be compared with the issues in Japan regarding Japan’s history. Should the comfort women issue be taught about in history class? How about the Nanjing massacre?
–
I don’t think it should be so simple as to tell the teachers to follow one policy or else face the consequences. Teachers need to be able to have some freedom to exercise their conscience.
–
At least one solution is to decentralize the authority to choose a curriculum. Instead of deciding these issues at the national level, how about asking teachers and parents to decide about them on a local level. As I understand this, at least some decentralization has been suggested, and Education (MEXT) Minister Bunmei Ibuki is against such policies.
–
I really don’t want to run on here, but consider the case of sex education? No doubt there are many views on this, even in Japan. Or on a less serious note, how about school uniforms? Should girls have to wear skirts in school? I’m sure if we were to dwell on this no number of controversies would come up.
–
Would it be so bad to encourage the local community to debate and decide about these issues, themselves? The result of course would be an increase of diversity in Japan as each local community came up with different decisions. Certainly something anathema to those government officials who lean towards the right.
–
So I think the idea of a kihan-ishiki or normative consciousness, in which Japanese are suppose to all share certain common virtues is one that glosses over a lot that shouldn’t be glossed over. But as I understand it, at least some of these supposedly common virtues have been written into the recent revision of the Fundamental Law of Education.

Anyway, I think this is an important issue, and I am sorry to see that the Supreme Court of Japan feels a piano teacher can be coerced by threat of job security and income into playing piano accompaniment to song that once was written for a living god.