The story below is infuriating but predictable in many ways, unfortunately. I first learned of it by reading this article:
The Seoul Administrative Court erupted in applause Thursday after a judge ruled in favor of teacher Ji Hye-bok, nullifying a transfer order issued by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Jungbu District Office and reinstating her as an instructor.
Ji played a crucial role in publicizing mass sexual violence and harassment against the majority female students at her school in 2023, for which male students were held responsible. She applied for relief from a violation of student rights with the Seoul education office, and the following investigation led to written apologies from the perpetrating students.
However, the education office subsequently issued a transfer order for Ji in December 2023, effective from March 2024, citing the need to reduce teaching staff due to a declining student population. Ji argued that the move was retaliation for her whistleblowing and, from January 2024, staged a one-person protest in front of the Seoul education office.
She was later dismissed from her post in September 2024 for taking multiple unauthorized absences.
The court ruled Thursday that “Ji’s complaint constitutes public-interest whistleblowing.” [...]
Ji’s attorney said that if the education office does not appeal, the ruling will be finalized and Ji will be able to return to her school; the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education confirmed Friday that it would not appeal the court’s decision.
That second paragraph is so convoluted and murky that I was curious to dig around and find more information about what happened. As it turns out, while what the boys did was nowhere near as horrible as what happened in Miryang in 2005, these cases are similar in that the identities of the students who spoke out were made known to their harassers, which led to them being re-targeted. The actions of the school administration are pretty unbelievable, but, perhaps, predictable considering the collision of enduring attitudes and the perceived need to protect "the school's reputation," along with the those of the administrators. Below is a video from May 22, 2024 featuring an interview with Ji Hye-bok, followed by a translation of the transcript (done with AI and quite a bit of editing based on the video's embedded subtitles; sentences in quotation marks are statements by Ji unless otherwise stated):
For several months now, there has been a teacher holding a one-person protest in front of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. What could have driven a veteran teacher with over 30 years of experience to stand in the street holding a placard?
“My total teaching career spans a little over 30 years. I worked for four years at the school I most wish I could return to, and up until now I have continued working as a social studies teacher [at the school I have been transferred to].”
[Note that public school teachers typically spend five years at a school before being transferred to a new school; she therefore had one more year to go at the school where she was a whistleblower.]
Last spring [2023], through conversations with her students, she came to learn that sexual violence against female students had been occurring at the school for a long time, repeatedly and continuously.
“I first heard about it in late May of last year while counseling female students. It was not a one-time incident. From their first year through their second year—over the course of two years—there were numerous cases of persistent and repeated sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.”
[A supporter speaking at a protest]: “‘Why did you take off your mask? You’re ugly. Put your mask back on.’ ‘Your breasts are big.’ ‘Your face is ugly.’”
“Do you consider this to be words exchanged jokingly among close students? Absolutely not. This was something a male student said to a female student with whom he was not even particularly close. That female student was absent from school for several days afterward.”
— Statement from a parent (Issued April 2, 2024)
Even prior to this, some male students had directed remarks toward female students such as comments about whether their breasts were large or small, saying their faces were ugly, whispering in their ears that they wanted to have sex, and even asking a temporary (contract) teacher whether she had sex with her boyfriend, or saying that her teeth were yellow and asking whether she smoked—all of which constitute sexually harassing and sexually violent remarks.
Support for the Struggle Against an Unjust Transfer
— Statement from a parent (Issued April 2, 2024)
[A supporter speaking at the protest]: “Because it was difficult to identify specific individuals, these were incidents that were sometimes covered up and passed over, that did not surface publicly, and for which no special measures were taken.”
“I asked other teachers for help and also went to the student guidance department, but most cases were handled with verbal warnings only. Because the issues were not properly resolved, the students’ behavior continued. That was the result.”
“When I first heard the students’ stories, I immediately told them how sorry I was. As a teacher, I was deeply sorry that for two years I had not fully known what was happening and that I had not stepped up more actively to resolve it. I told them, ‘I’m truly sorry. But from now on, let’s work together to try to resolve this.’”
“After that, I made an initial report together with the principal and vice principal. Then we discussed how to proceed. Under a teacher’s duty, once such a matter is learned of, it must be reported within 48 hours. But to report it properly, we needed to understand exactly what was happening and how to describe it.”
“So we conducted an anonymous survey of female students. They were told to write exactly what had happened, including incidents they had heard about. According to the results, about three quarters of the female students had experienced sexual harassment or non-consensual touching over a two-year period. We judged the matter to be serious, and the principal and vice principal decided to compile the report quickly and file it.”
The teacher moved forward in order to resolve a sexual violence problem that had been occurring routinely over a long period of time. However, during the investigation process, the identities of the victimized students were exposed, and the teacher in charge arbitrarily downplayed the case. After the school violence report was filed, even more problems arose.
The investigation process was conducted in a way that seriously violated students’ human rights. Because the initial reporting, which took the form of a brief survey, was anonymous, the names of the students who reported could not be included. As a result, the teacher who was in charge of the investigation at the time said that reports had to be submitted with the student’s name clearly written and limited to a description only of what they themselves had experienced. If you look at the Ministry of Education’s sexual violence manual, eyewitness accounts are also considered important evidence. This is also true more broadly in society, because when cases of sexual violence occur, eyewitness testimony is always included. I think that, at that first stage, the case was already being minimized.”
“As a result, about six students—those who were more courageous and who had long recognized the seriousness of the situation—expressed their intention to report. At first, their confident expressions and attitudes—saying, ‘I’ll do it’—moved me deeply. Seeing second-year middle school students take such an active, self-directed stance toward resolving the problem gave me hope. I felt proud, thinking that if these students grew up with this mindset, many problems in society could gradually be resolved.”
“So, the students wrote factual statements together, and I collected what was written and submitted to the vice principal, who was the chair of the school violence committee. I submitted the six students’ factual statements, the parents’ confirmation letters, and requests for separation measures that three students had asked for. This was around June 13.”
“From that point, I felt a sense of relief. After the School MeToo movement, I believed that our society had put in place fairly concrete and relatively thorough measures for responding to cases of sexual violence when they occur in schools. And because the school principal, the vice principal, and the teacher who was responsible for the investigation within the school violence committee all promised that they would handle the subsequent process properly, I trusted them and had expectations going forward.”
“At that time, the principal told me that from this point on, the school violence committee would take over and that I should completely step away from the matter. I said I would do so, except for one thing: ‘The identities of the victimized students who made reports must be strictly protected,’ and ‘Secondary harm must not occur.’ But then the school violence committee said they would investigate the victim students. And not only that—they said the investigation would be conducted publicly, by calling them into the Student Guidance Department. I told them that this could not be done because there was a risk that the students’ identities would be exposed. Then the teacher in charge of the investigation said, ‘The students identified as perpetrators could be unfairly harmed. We need to call them in and investigate to verify the facts,’ and ‘I looked at the fact-checking statements the students wrote, and stalking is not sexual violence.’”
“So I said, ‘This is extremely dangerous. We must not make such judgments lightly.’ If the students were called publicly to the Student Guidance Department, there was a real possibility that their identities would be exposed, so I said, ‘I am absolutely opposed to calling the students to the Student Guidance Department.’ It was an open space where many students and teachers pass through. If interviews were conducted there, exposure would be inevitable.”
After that, Ji Hye-bok sought advice from the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Gender Equality Team, the Jungbu District Office Integrated Support Center, and the school violence supervising officer.
“I was advised that the school should submit the students’ original factual statements as is—without alteration—to the district office, where professionals on the review committee would determine the facts. Victims, alleged perpetrators, and parents would all have opportunities to testify there. The school should not make arbitrary judgments. I was also told repeatedly that protecting the identities of victimized students must be the top priority throughout the investigation. I conveyed all of this—three times—to the principal, vice principal, and the investigating teacher.”
Nevertheless, identity exposure and secondary victimization occurred almost immediately.
“On the very day the statements were submitted, three female students—two who knew the details very well and one student who had made a report—ran to me in shock. Near the school, there is a small park. They said that a student accused as a perpetrator had gone to the student guidance office and came out knowing exactly who reported whom and what had been written. That student then verbally attacked and insulted the reporting student in front of others. When the three girls passed by, they too were pulled in and subjected to an angry outburst. The students asked me, "How could a teacher in charge, in the Student Guidance Department, disclose things like that at all?"
[Interviewer]: “From their perspective, they had written and submitted their own experiences, only to have their identities exposed immediately.”
“That's right. That same evening, Instagram posts targeting the students began appearing. The next morning, many male students gathered in the hallways, went to the classrooms where reporting students were concentrated, kicked desks, and kicked chairs during lunch. They mocked the situation, saying things like, ‘Is this sexual harassment too?’”
“It became painfully clear that students had not received proper sexual violence prevention education. They did not even understand why what they said could constitute sexual harassment. “So the students who had been identified as perpetrators were full of anger. According to testimony given by parents just beforehand, there were students who went around classroom to classroom dragging a box cutter and saying, ‘Just try writing my name.’ I only heard about that later, but at the point when the statements of fact were being written, the names of the students who had made those threats were all left out. And because they were told, ‘Only write what you personally experienced,’ eyewitness accounts were also excluded, so the case had already been significantly scaled down during that process.”
“On top of that, secondary victimization became extremely severe. On the day in question, the entire corridor where the second-year classrooms were was filled every break time with male students gathering separately, forming what they called a ‘task force,’ meeting in the stands on the school playground and chanting together. Female students kept coming to me during every break, saying, ‘Teacher, what should we do…,’ telling me they were terrified.”
“What was happening did not resemble the step-by-step procedures laid out in the manuals that were supposedly in place; instead, it was unfolding in the most serious and alarming direction I had feared. Eventually, about three times, all of the victimized students were called to the Student Guidance Department. According to the reporting victims, when they were called, they didn’t go at first. In the students’ own words, they were ‘too scared.’ Because they didn’t go, the teacher in charge of the school violence investigation came to them during class time. Then, in front of other students, that teacher called out the three reporting victims and said things like, ‘Why aren’t you coming?’ Forced by the situation, they went.”
“Their interviews were recorded. The teacher told them the recording was necessary because they might face disadvantages. According to the Ministry of Education’s manual, when victimized students are questioned, a parent or legal guardian must be present to prevent fear or distress. None of this was followed.”
“I only learned later—after the investigation was over—how severe the human rights violations had been. When I met the students again after school, I felt overwhelming anger. Despite repeatedly emphasizing that protecting students’ rights was the most important thing, procedures had been carried out in reverse. I could not accept what appeared to be attempts to minimize or conceal the issue. Parents were furious as well, and complaints were filed to prevent such violations from happening again.”
Ji Hye-bok reported the human rights violations in the school’s internal investigation to higher authorities, including the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education and the Jungbu District Office.
“I received a call from the head of the Jungbu District Office in charge of school violence. He was shocked. ‘How could this situation be handled this way?’ He seriously considered the matter and promised, ‘We will take all necessary steps.’”
The Jungbu District Office said it appeared to be a problematic situation and that they would investigate, so Ji waited. In the end, however, the Jungbu District Office concluded that there was no problem.
“They came once at the end of August and stayed for about two hours, apparently sitting in the principal’s office before leaving. When I asked whom they had met, I was told they met four people: two teachers from the student guidance department, the homeroom teacher whose students had repeatedly requested that this issue be resolved, and the head teacher of that grade. Under those circumstances, how could that investigation possibly be considered objective?”
“I then called the supervisor in charge of school violence at the district office. The day I called was September 2, but as of September 1 the person in charge had already been replaced. The new person said they had only read the documents and found no major issues, that they had listened to the school’s explanation and found no procedural violations, and that there were no problems with the investigation process. I felt utterly deflated.”
“They said ‘Matters involving human rights during the investigation are not our responsibility.’ Their role, they said, was only to convene the School Violence Review Committee once the school submitted its findings.”
In the meantime, the School Violence Review Committee was held. Measures for the three perpetrators were concluded as follows: written apologies and dismissal for lack of evidence.
“The day the committee met was also the day when the school sports day was being held. Some of the students [the victims] were participating as athletes, and the committee was held at 2pm, a time when the students could not attend. The students later expressed complaints to me about this as well.”
“Because the parents of the victimized students were already deeply disappointed with the Jungbu District Office, not a single one of them attended the School Violence Review Committee. In the end, the student whose sexual harassment had been particularly severe was told to write a written apology and do five days of volunteer service in the school. The second student was told to write a written apology. The third student was found not guilty due to insufficient evidence. This outcome once again caused great disappointment to the victimized student and their parents.”
Even the written apologies were not properly carried out.
“One student wrote the names of several victims at the top, then wrote a single handwritten apology below. That apology was photocopied and distributed to the other students. The victimized students brought it to me and showed it, saying, ‘This is what they gave us.’ How can that be considered a sincere apology? The second student who was supposed to submit a written apology did not apologize at all.”
“I met with the superintendent of the Jungbu District Office, the head of the Integrated Support Center, and the supervisor in charge of school violence. When I explained how the matter had been handled within the school, I was told that a written apology was a recommendation, not mandatory.”
As the case remained unresolved, a dangerous misconception spread—that even sexual violence would go unpunished.
“Students who had committed very serious acts were not properly guided, and many other students were excluded from the process altogether. As a result, sexual violence continued. I raised this issue with the vice principal and stated that a solution was necessary.”
“The vice principal responded by saying that in order to resolve the issue, once again ‘The names of the victimized students are required.’ When asked, the students said, ‘I’m afraid and don’t want my identity exposed,’ and ‘I’d rather just endure it.’ This situation continued. Recently, I heard from parents who came forward that one student who had suffered sexual harassment was considering dropping out of school, and another had stopped attending school altogether.”
Ji Hye-bok requested a reinvestigation by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Student Human Rights Education Center.
“Because the students feared exposure of their identities, they met separately and secretly—almost like a covert operation—at places like a bakery, and then met together with the center director and investigators. At those meetings, the students gave testimony and expressed their demands. The parents of the victimized students were also met separately. This process continued until mid-October.”
After a long investigation, eight months after the incident occurred, the Student Human Rights Education Center issued a recommendation stating that violations of the victimized students’ human rights had occurred during the investigation process.
“The recommendation included detailed findings of fact, an apology from the school principal and the teacher who conducted the investigation to the victimized students and their parents, comprehensive sexual violence prevention education for students, parents, and teachers, and the establishment of broad, systemic measures to address the issue. I felt relieved.”
Ji Hye-bok attempted to share the school notice and request implementation of the recommendations. However, as she was about to do so at the end of December, she was notified of an involuntary transfer.
“From the perspective of the principal and vice principal, how uncomfortable must it have been for me to be there? If the recommendations had been publicly announced and implementation required, I would have demanded compliance on site and monitored it. Anyone could predict that removing me from the school would be considered necessary.”
The official reason given for the transfer was seniority-based reassignment. However, at Ji Hye-bok’s school there were three history teachers and two social studies teachers, meaning history teachers were in surplus. Transferring a social studies teacher like herself would result in a shortage. Nevertheless, the school claimed that history and social studies were integrated subjects and transferred her against her will.
“In reality, according to the plans for the 2024 school year, the school needed two social studies teachers and two history teachers. There were not three history teachers. The school combined history and social studies and applied a rule based on who had been at the school longest, saying ‘The person who is set to transfer earliest must leave [now].’ At first, I thought that if such a standard had been agreed upon in a faculty meeting, perhaps it had to be followed.”
“But history and social studies are independent subjects. Their instructional hours differ, their textbooks differ, their exams differ, and their curriculum plans are separate. After 2010, world history, which was previously included in social studies textbooks, was merged with national history, making history a completely independent subject from social studies. Teaching licenses are also issued separately, as clearly stated in education law.”
“From the standpoint of students’ right to education, guaranteed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on Education, it is a basic principle that subjects should be taught by teachers who are licensed in that subject. Otherwise, one would be saying that social studies teachers can arbitrarily teach history and history teachers can arbitrarily teach social studies. That does not make sense.”
[Interviewer]: “The content is different, and so are the areas of specialization, and from the students’ perspective, they cannot properly learn under such conditions?”
“That’s right. I concluded that this was neither reasonable nor principled.”
The basis the middle school used for the transfer was a document titled the “2014 Middle School Teacher Transfer Plan.” According to Ji, this document was an arbitrary internal guideline created merely to assist transfer administration. It has no legal force and violates higher-level regulations.
“When one looks at the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s guidelines for middle school curriculum organization and operation, social studies and history are clearly separated, with distinct operational guidelines. That document is an officially promulgated administrative notice with legal force. There is also the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Secondary Teacher Personnel Principles, which state that the first criterion for transfer is subject-specific supply and demand. This too is an officially announced document. According to all legal grounds, social studies teachers and history teachers should have been selected separately for transfer.”
“Up until 2023, even the Jungbu District Office issued transfer appointments for social studies and history as separate subjects. Other district offices did the same. But then, suddenly, on December 29, 2023, they combined the two subjects. I checked the websites of all other district offices. All of them still separate the subjects—western, eastern, southern districts alike. I have also served as a committee member for over ten years in consultations related to Jungbu District Office information, and until 2023, transfers were always conducted separately. Yet suddenly, in 2024, only Jungbu combined them.”
Ji Hye-bok is now awaiting the result of her appeal regarding this unjust transfer. What she truly wants is for victimized students to no longer be hurt, and for them not to regret having had the courage to speak out about sexual violence.
“There is a Teachers’ Appeals Review Committee. If I win, I will return to my previous school. If I lose, I will proceed with an administrative lawsuit. However, rather than waiting for legal judgment—which takes too long—I am demanding that the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, as the appointing authority, resolve this immediately and allow me to return as soon as possible.”
“Waiting for a court ruling takes time, and the students are now in their third year and will soon graduate. A parent told me that the students are worried that what they started may have caused harm to the teacher instead. Hearing that broke my heart. I want to tell the students face to face that this was not their fault, that they did what they needed to do, and that it was wrong for adults to cover it up and avoid resolving it. By my return, I want them to see that things were set right—that justice still exists in our society. I want to return quickly and work to ensure that the recommended measures are properly implemented. The students showed remarkable courage in trying to resolve this issue themselves. But if, during the resolution process, they become discouraged, thinking, ‘We’ll never report again,’ and graduate in a state of resignation, then I will never have the chance to speak to them, nor show them that things can be corrected within the school. I want to remain a teacher to whom students can come—even quietly—to share the harm they have endured.”
[Woman speaking at a protest; unclear if these are her words or Ji’s]: “I will make this struggle a victory and return dignity, courage, gender equality, and justice to children who suffered in silence after being victimized. I will give back to survivors of sexual violence the courage and will to change the world, and I will help create safe, gender-equal schools. I ask for your solidarity and support. Thank you. Tujaeng!”
* * * * * *
The Kyunghyang Shinmun reported on Ji's court victory and some of the other issues surrounding her case:
At the time, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education also did not recognize Ji Hye-bok as a public-interest whistleblower. In response to Ms. Ji’s request to withdraw her transfer, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education sent her an official notice in March 2024 stating that it was “difficult to definitively regard her as a public-interest whistleblower.” At the time, the Office of Education judged that it was difficult to view Ms. Ji as a public-interest whistleblower based on the Anti-Corruption Act rather than the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act. However, in this ruling, the court applied the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act and determined that the transfer constituted a disadvantageous measure.
In response, Ms. Ji refused to report to work and appealed the unfairness of the situation through a one-person protest. The school dismissed her, citing unauthorized absence. It took two years for a ruling to be issued. During Ms. Ji’s protest, civic groups formed a joint countermeasures committee, and after the December 3, 2024 illegal martial law incident, she received support and encouragement from the so-called “Wasp Comrades” (citizens who quickly rush to sites of struggle, like the “Wasp Man” who appeared on a variety show). Victimized students and parents also submitted petitions to the court to support Ms. Ji.
This case left both hope and limitations in terms of protecting public-interest whistleblowers. After the sentencing, Ms. Ji stated in front of the courthouse, “I want teachers who, like me, suffered and left their schools after raising problems within schools to be fully protected,” and added, “I hope today’s ruling gives them courage.” As she said, this ruling confirmed that legitimate public-interest reporting is protected by law.
The problem is that it took more than two years of raising her voice in the cold streets before Ms. Ji was recognized as a public-interest whistleblower. In a Kyunghyang Shinmun interview last March, Ms. Ji reflected on the words “Please win, no matter what,” spoken by the Wasp Comrades as they shared their own experiences of victimization during their student years. Thinking of students who had suffered sexual violence, she said she felt she could not give up. Without the solidarity and support of civil society, this may have been impossible.
Ms. Ji’s arduous struggle stemmed from the fact that she was placed in a legal blind spot immediately after making her public-interest report. The Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act stipulates punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment for those who disadvantage whistleblowers. Yet, as in Ms. Ji’s case, once a whistleblower is subjected to a transfer or dismissal, they are forced to endure the harm until they are officially recognized as a public-interest whistleblower. Even when whistleblowers apply for protective measures, only 7.3 percent of cases have been accepted by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission over the past five years. [...]
Resolving the core issue of the case—sexual violence within schools—also remains a challenge. Ms. Ji said, “If sexual violence was blatant before School MeToo, now it has simply gone underground,” adding, “When a teacher steps forward to address a sexual violence case, they become isolated. They are subjected to criticism and attacks from the offending students, their parents, and fellow teachers.” Analyses pointing to the intensification of anti-feminist and far-right sentiments among teenagers in recent years only deepen these concerns.
* * * * * *
This Reddit post notes the name of the school, and when I looked it up, I suddenly remembered a story told to me by someone I know. She moved a bunch of her daughter's things to her brother's house in order to convince her daughter's school that that was her address (there was an inspection) ahead of her graduation from elementary school. This was because, she said, based on her own address, her daughter was likely to be sent to a co-ed middle school full of boys, and she wanted her to go to a girl's middle school instead. Seeing the location of the offending school, I realized that it was likely that school in particular she was trying to avoid.
It's unfortunate Ji was unable to be there for her second-grade students' final year and graduation, though the last article suggest she remains in touch with them. There are several elements of the system, most notably those at ground level in the school, that terribly failed the girls who spoke out and the teacher, while others did their job as they were supposed to, like the SMOE Student Human Rights Education Center, though that only succeeded by contacting it secretly. At least SMOE isn't appealing the ruling, but that's a pretty low bar when you consider she was holding a sit-in in front of its main office for two years and they could have done the right thing at any time.
