The Plight of Foreign Teachers at National Universities
Translation and Commentary
by Steve McCarty
Original print publication: On CUE, 1 (2), 14-15 (1993).
An article entitled "National Universities not Internationalizing"
(国際化進まぬ 国立大学 Kokusaika susumanu kokuritsu daigaku) was
seen by millions of readers on May 12, 1993 in the "Bunka"
（文化）column of the vernacular daily Asahi Shimbun（朝日新聞）. The translation
below consists of direct quotations and paraphrase of the main
points. Commentary on the situation, as it pertains to the role
of foreign faculty in Japanese education generally, is identified
as such.
"Ten years have transpired since public universities embarked
on the road to open regular faculty positions of Kyoju（教授）,
Jokyoju （助教授）and Koshi （講師）to foreigners. Regular
faculty（教員 Kyoin) have increased to 201, but the road to
internationalization remains distant," according to staff
writer Yoichi Kamimaru. The accompanying graph shows that Gaikokujin
Kyoshi （外国人教師）, casually hired foreign instructors, often
on a one-year contract basis, have also increased from 311 to
364 in that time.
Comment: Regular foreign faculty are called Gaikokujin Kyoin,
so there is no escaping categorical treatment based on nationality,
but the non-classroom roles of an educator are denied by the title
kyoshi or teacher even while professorial credentials are
demanded.
The article goes on to say that nine universities such as Todai
and Kyushu U. have all 201 of the regular foreign faculty: 30
Kyoju, 115 Jokyoju and 56 Koshi. Among these
are 55 Americans, 35 Chinese and 34 Koreans [including those
born in Japan]. Yet the other 45 out of 54 national universities
and research institutes have none.
"From inside as well as outside Japan the criticism has been
raised that scholarship has always been something universal transcending
national borders."
Comment: If this recognition were to imbue the mission of Japanese
universities, it might not be necessary, as the title of the article
implies, to equate foreign faculty with internationalization.
Though the above consideration inspired the 1982 law, Kamimaru
writes, inequality remains, particularly with regard to the terms
of employment. At only a few national universities is the tenure
track open to foreigners, which has provoked strong criticism.
Comment: A contract is not to be welcomed in this country, as
it provides not for job security but for the next turn of the
revolving door.
Out of about 37,000 national university faculty, the above-mentioned
201 represent a mere 0.5%. By comparison, at private universities
almost 3% of 1,466 regular faculty members are foreigners. "At
Jochi Daigaku (Sophia U.) which has cosmopolitanism（国際性 kokusaisei)
as its distinctive feature, 118 out of 533 regular faculty are
foreigners."
At national universities foreigners enter a system where the number
of slots is limited by law. The question has always been whether
posts would be passed to foreigners at Japanese universities where
the sense of factional affiliation and cultivating connections
based on common academic origins (学閥や人脈 gakubatsu ya jimmyaku)
is strong. Prof. Kazuyuki Kitamura is quoted as saying, "unless
the predisposition to hire mostly their own graduates is broken
down, letting in a breeze from outside, universities will not
internationalize."
Comment: The next subheading uses non-standard Japanese, perhaps
ironically, in emphasizing "Even now, 'hired gun' treatment."
The word suketto is a bit outdated but is sometimes applied
to foreign pro baseball players. The Chinese character for assistance
is normally followed by hiragana（助っと）, but here the final
syllable is changed back into the character for person（助っ人）, as
is standard for example in the word shiroto（素人）or amateur.
Further comment: Part-time instructors (非常勤講師 Hijokin Koshi)
including Japanese nationals are also a kind of suketto,
hired to teach courses the regular faculty cannot cover. There
is no alternative but to hire outside people of lower status to
play a limited role, hence the irony of elevating the hiragana
to a person.
Mombusho decides the quota for each national university, Kamimaru
continues. Among the temporary hires are not a few Japan veterans.
Their experience and achievements are valued, so their contracts
are extended. But centering around these veterans, Mombusho sent
shock waves through national universities by requesting concrete
hiring plans, that is, to specify when contracts terminate.
Foreign instructors hearing of this asked, "Why can't we
be seen as anything but gaijin (ガイジン)? Isn't internationalization
to see people as individual human beings?" Domestic sources
added that it could have international repercussions to cut foreign
intellectuals familiar with Japan in order to save on personnel
costs."
Regarding this a Mombusho spokesman said, "With budgets limited,
if the same educational outcome results, we want them to hire
young people" who cost less. It is not a directive to terminate
contracts, he explained, but rather to scrutinize automatic extensions.
The reporter finally asks whether or not the suketto role
of foreign teachers unchanged since the Meiji Period is suitable
to the present age.
Concluding comment: All public universities (国交立大学 kokkoritsu
daigaku) were enabled by the 1982 law to grant tenure to foreign
faculty, but the option has been implemented at only nine top
national universities. Foreign educators need to articulate the
case, preferably in Japanese, that experience does result in better
education as well as professional and community level involvement.
Nevertheless, the article reviewed here could be important as
a sort of gaiatsu （外圧) embarrassing the government into doing
the right thing or discontinuing the wrong thing.