2008.10.21
The NHRCK recommended that the principal of Middle School S in Ulsan City take preventive measures regarding forcible dispersion of students' protests at school, collective education, and corporal punishment and respect students' rights to decide concerning forcing students to attend school earlier and forbidding them to possess cell phones.
An activist (male, 20 years old) in Asunaro, an organization for juvenile rights, filed a complaint in October 2007, on the basis that Middle School S took excessive countermeasures against students' demonstrations for their rights, and thereby violated the right to freedom of assembly; the school also forced students to attend school.
On May 10, 2008, about 150 Middle School S students demonstrated for their rights and freedom of hair style for 20 minutes at school. The school forcibly dispersed the demonstration and argued that the petitioner had agitated the protest and students had not registered it beforehand and, thus, it was considered an illegal protest. School officials forcibly dispersed students.
However, the Commission deemed the demonstration legal in that the protest was held at lunch time, it did not disturb other students’ or teachers' classes, it was a peaceful assembly, and it involved students' freedom of hair style and the ban on corporal punishment.
Therefore, the Commission confirmed that considering the assembly illegal and dispersing protesting students infringed upon students’ freedom of assembly, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, after the demonstration, the school unilaterally took collective education instead of regular classes and the principal inflicted corporal punishment on 20 students. The school claimed that this was a regular education practice, conducted every month. However, considering the principal's warning and corporal punishment the same day when the protest was held, it is hard to regard it as “regular education.” Even if it is regarded as regular collective education, labelling students' protests illegal and giving them warnings can restrict their freedom in the future.
With regards to corporal punishment on students, it violates the physical freedom that is guaranteed by Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, teachers who were involved in the punishment, including the teacher who directly punished students and the principal who abetted it, should take responsibility for physical punishment and violation of physical freedom.
Furthermore, the Commission confirmed that forbidding students to possess cell phones is an excessive regulation which infringes the students’ right to decide and right to pursue happiness, enshrined by Article 10 of the Constitution. Thus, related policy should be reviewed in a way that only forbids students to use cell phones during classes.
The Commission also affirmed that forcing students to attend school an hour earlier than the start of classes and to do self-study is unreasonable and does not provide enough autonomy to students. Forcing students to do school activities in addition to regular classes without any reasonable grounds restricts the right to decide, guaranteed in Article 10 of the Constitution. Thus, the Commission recommended reconsidering related policies in order to respect the students' right to decide.
In the meantime, the Commission confirmed that forcing students’ written statement on protest violates students' freedom of conscience because requesting it controls students' behavior.
