램지어 논란을 인지한 상태에서 그저 '논문’이라고 칭하면서 발표한게 더 괘씸하죠. 진짜 저도 그날 너무 혈압이 올라서 새벽 4-5시까지 리서치하고 편지를 썼는데… 정말 한국인이라면 이런 이슈가 있을때 바로바로 대응할 수 있도록 메뉴얼같은게 있어야할 것 같아요. 솔직히 저도 그렇고 한국분들이 대체로 피꺼솟해서 엎어놓기만 하는데 조금 전략적으로 제 3자도 설득하고 주위의 지지를 끌어내는 방법을 생각해보는게 중요할 것 같습니다.
혹시라도 앞으로 이런 일이 생길때 조금이나마 도움이 될 수 있도록 여기 저희 성명서 초안을 쉐어해 드리겠습니다. 아직 성명서를 교수님한테 보내지 않았기에 일단은 이 사이트 내에서만 읽어주시면 감사하겠습니다 ^^; :
We are writing as a group to raise concerns about our classmate, [Redacted]’s presentation on the matter of Japan and South Korea’s basic treaty, which took place on March 17. Individually, we were all concerned about [Redacted]'s treatment of a very sensitive political topic, but at the time none of us felt comfortable about pushing back against his claims as this was a topic that we weren’t familiar with. Upon discussions with each other and further research, we have found extremely troubling parts of [Redacted]'s presentation that we would like to raise objections, not so much in the interest of engaging in language policing or censorship, but to properly inform our classmates about the important factual inaccuracies in [Redacted]'s presentation and highlight the complexity and sensitivity around this issue.
In the presentation and the literature review, [Redacted] has referred to the exploitation of young girls and women by the Japanese government as “alleged,” and suggested that the South Korean government was self-victimizing itself in order to justify the violation of an international treaty. Relying on two sources, [Redacted] depicts the comfort women issue as “highly contested.”
The treatment of the comfort women issue as a fiction or even semi-truth is factually incorrect and incredibly problematic. Yohei Kono, who was the Chief Cabinet Secretary, said the following on August 4, 1993: “Undeniably, this was an act, with the involvement of the military authorities of the day, that severely injured the honor and dignity of many women. The Government of Japan would like to take this opportunity once again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.”
Further, in the report commissioned by both Japan and South Korea, the UN Special Rapporteur wrote that she is "absolutely convinced that most of the women kept at the comfort stations were taken against their will, that the Japanese Imperial Army initiated, regulated and controlled the vast network of comfort stations, and that the Government of Japan is responsible for the comfort stations.”
Here, [Redacted]'s presentation and literature review omitted the two critical sources — an official government statement from Tokyo and a special UN report — and represented this issue in a manner that we believe is intentionally misguided.
It should also be noted that the source that [Redacted] uses is J. Mark Ramseyer’s controversial 2021 article, which has been discredited not just for its unethical justification of forced sexual labour and distortion of history, but also for being a sub-standard academic work. Distinguished economists Alvin Roth, Roger Noll, Paul Milgrom (Stanford), Pinelopi Goldberg (Yale), as well as 12 editors of the APSR have raised concerns about Ramseyer’s article.
In the article, Ramseyer argues that a ten-year-old girl signed a contract, and that therefore her becoming a sex slave was a result of a voluntary, consensual agreement. Further, Ramseyer’s colleague Jeannie Suk Gersen wrote that Ramseyer did not even have access to the contracts of Korean comfort women in writing this article, which raises further questions about its academic and ethical integrity. Previously, Ramseyer perpetuated myths about Koreans and the burakumin that have been academically discredited, using blog posts from Japanese far right authors as his source in his academic work. The full explanation of the various issues with article is available in this letter, which was signed by 3,567 academics and community members. As of two weeks ago, the International Review of Law and Economics, which published Ramseyer’s piece, is re-visiting this piece with the possibilities of retracting this article.
[Redacted]'s main inquiry about the Treaty on Basic Relations and the political spat between South Korea and Japan veers into a greyer area where earnest academic discussions are merited. However, it should be noted that [Redacted]'s line of argument fundamentally builds upon the idea that the complaints from South Korea are illegitimate, and the efforts of nationalist Japanese revisionists who seek to erase / distort established historical facts. In Japan, these efforts are used to solidify the support from nationalist, far-right groups that do not contribute to constructive dialogues and promote exclusion of certain groups.
[Redacted], presenting himself as an expert on this complex and sensitive issue in the classroom, had the responsibility to present these complex political dynamics in a balanced manner, especially as a graduate student participating in a mixed class with undergraduates. Instead, he chose to omit facts and used questionable sources, as well as co-opting the language of the Japanese far right, which suggests that this work is driven by political biases, rather than the search for academic truth.
A final point that we would like to address is [Redacted]'s approach to this extremely sensitive topic and his disregard for collegiality. We all felt incredibly distressed during [Redacted]'s presentation; some of us were even more affected due to personal family histories related to the matter. This is an issue that brings a lot of pain not just to South Koreans, but also to the victims in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc., and when unpacked, it is difficult to distinguish the historical denialism that [Redacted] presented from Holocaust denials. Had [Redacted] not known about these dynamics and tension, then this might have been understandable. However, it is difficult for us to think that [Redacted] was fully aware of the complexity and sensitivity of the issue. Shortly after the presentation, he uploaded the following tweet:
[Redacted], as a non-Japanese or a non-Korean, chose to address an issue that elicits visceral reactions and intense conflict. The tweet underscores his choice to take this loaded issue without the care and sensitivity that is required and expected, as well as the lack of self-awareness about his own positionality and privilege as a third party, which we find to be concerning and disappointing.
Again, we do not want to police [Redacted] language or work. We are not demanding an apology or retraction either. [Redacted] is entitled to his academic freedoms, but so do we and our other classmates. We believe that students in the class deserve to be informed about the full picture of this incredibly complex and sensitive issue; and also how we feel about [Redacted]'s treatment of the issue, which, put diplomatically, leave much to be desired. To that end, we would like to simply request you to share this letter with the rest of the class.
