Cho Hee-yeon "Considering Re-request for Reconsideration and Supreme Court Appeal on Student Rights Ordinance Abolition"

Press Conference of Education Superintendents from 9 Provinces Nationwide

Regarding the Seoul Metropolitan Council's attempt to abolish the Seoul Student Human Rights Ordinance, the superintendents of education from nine metropolitan and provincial offices of education nationwide protested on the 19th, demanding that the "anachronistic and discriminatory abolition be stopped."

On the morning of the 19th, Cho Hee-yeon, Superintendent of Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, and Choi Gyo-jin, Superintendent of Sejong City Office of Education, urged the Seoul Metropolitan Council to halt discussions on the abolition of the Student Human Rights Ordinance at the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

Jo Hee-yeon, Superintendent of Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education; Do Seong-hoon, Superintendent of Incheon Metropolitan Office of Education; Lee Jeong-seon, Superintendent of Gwangju Metropolitan Office of Education; Cheon Chang-soo, Superintendent of Ulsan Metropolitan Office of Education; Choi Gyo-jin, Superintendent of Sejong Metropolitan Office of Education; Kim Ji-cheol, Superintendent of Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education; Park Jong-hoon, Superintendent of Gyeongsangnam-do Office of Education; Kim Kwang-soo, Superintendent of Jeju City Office of Education; and Seo Geo-seok, Superintendent of Jeonbuk Office of Education?these nine superintendents issued a statement on the day, asserting that "the Seoul Metropolitan Council should halt discussions on abolishing the Student Human Rights Ordinance."

The Student Human Rights Ordinance was first enacted by the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education in 2010 and is currently implemented in six metropolitan and provincial offices of education, including Seoul, out of the 17 nationwide (Seoul, Gyeonggi, Chungnam, Gwangju, Jeonbuk, Jeju).

However, recently, alongside issues of infringement on teachers' rights, the stance that the Student Human Rights Ordinance should be abolished has gained momentum, accelerating abolition movements across the country. The Chungnam Provincial Council passed a bill to abolish the Student Human Rights Ordinance on the 15th, becoming the first among seven offices of education to do so.

The abolition bill for the Seoul Student Human Rights Ordinance was also scheduled to be submitted to the Seoul Metropolitan Council but has been temporarily halted due to a court decision the day before. However, if the abolition bill is re-submitted through a council member's proposal rather than a residents' ordinance petition, there is no way to prevent it.

Superintendents Jo and Choi held a press conference at the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education on the day, criticizing, "The Seoul Metropolitan Council is proceeding with the abolition process, siding with abolitionists' claims that the Student Human Rights Ordinance encourages homosexuality and sexual promiscuity among students and guarantees only students' rights, leading to the collapse of teachers' authority."

They stated, "Children who grow up receiving respect and love become people who know how to respect and love others," and added, "The history of gradually advancing student human rights must not regress."

Superintendent Jo announced that if the abolition bill is submitted and passed through the council by a member's proposal, he plans to request reconsideration, and if the council re-passes it, he intends to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court.

He also explained that if the ordinance is ultimately abolished, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education will administratively support what the Student Human Rights Ordinance had guaranteed.

He further claimed, "When discussions on abolishing the Student Human Rights Ordinance began in the council, they mainly focused on issues of homosexuality or sexual orientation. Then, after the Seoicho incident in July, the issue of teachers' rights emerged as a key point, and the Student Human Rights Ordinance was distortedly linked with the teachers' rights issue."