[Yes and No] Why Didn't They Protect Jo Dong-yeon?

Although it was later revealed to be due to sexual violence, when the personal life allegations surrounding Professor Jo Dong-yeon, who had been appointed as the co-chair of the Democratic Party’s joint election countermeasures committee, first surfaced, people likely suspected an affair. However, whether the reason he had an extramarital child was due to an affair or not, it is difficult to understand why that should be a reason for resignation. What is even more disappointing is the Democratic Party’s subsequent response, which sought to recruit him. Presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung said about this matter, "I, as the candidate, will take full responsibility." Does that responsibility mean failing to thoroughly investigate Professor Jo’s personal life? Does it imply that if they had known about the existence of an extramarital child beforehand, they would not have recruited him? No Woong-rae, director of the Democratic Research Institute, went further, calling it "a failure in personnel verification during an overheated talent recruitment process," and said, "It is appropriate to strictly verify and take measures."

Of course, many other Democratic Party figures criticized the excessive interest in Professor Jo’s personal life and the exposure of private information, while supporting his life. They also added advice such as, "Walk proudly as you have done so far." However, the attitude that such a proud walk should be outside the Democratic Party’s election committee is hypocritical. No one in the Democratic Party goes so far as to pressure the party to have Professor Jo maintain his position and lead the election committee. Although they may think his forced voluntary resignation is unfair, they likely considered the impact on the election.

Our society seems to have generally agreed to put issues of personal life on the public official verification platform. Even if it is unrelated to the ability to perform the duties or not illegal, deviant behavior considered "undesirable" is seen as related to the qualifications for public office. There may be pros and cons to this, but I have no intention of opposing the widely circulated social perception.

However, I think differently about whether it is appropriate to apply this standard to the position of election committee chairperson of a specific political party that Professor Jo was about to take. This holds true even assuming society regards the matter as an "affair." The social benefit gained by restricting public office for those with personal lives is unclear, but the harm caused is relatively clear, as pointed out by Professor Jin Joong-kwon. It should also be considered that the Democratic Party’s election committee chairperson cannot be regarded as a public official in the general sense.

There may be concerns about the social experience that even those who commit difficult-to-encourage deviant acts can rise to "successful positions." However, although the history of mixing personal life with qualifications for public office is long, there is no evidence that it has strengthened the ethical consciousness of our society’s members. On the contrary, it is clear that it results in more wounds to individuals and the loss of more talent to society. The society we should aim for is one that sets separate value judgment standards for these two matters and knows how to reasonably distinguish between them.

Returning to the Democratic Party’s response, the election strategy of accepting Professor Jo’s resignation to quickly move past the controversy will not be successful. It may avoid an immediate drop in approval ratings. However, as several Democratic Party insiders have said, many people have not received a clear answer as to why a female professor with an extramarital child should not engage in politics. The Democratic Party and candidate Lee Jae-myung could have made a decisive decision to firmly support Professor Jo and directly confront the changing perceptions that are now needed. Failing to do so may have missed a golden opportunity to attract the centrist voters and gain favorable reviews from the MZ generation, which are hot keywords in the current presidential race.

Shin Beom-su, Chief of Political Affairs