[Opinion] Human rights in SNU: the matter of being here and now
Two years have passed since our campus became re-energized back to pre-COVID times. With the revitalization of the student community—leaving behind the atrophy of online semesters—the SNU Human Rights Student Council (SHRC) has also relaunched. While we still face many challenges, I believe it is formidable to have an official Student Council-affiliated organization to discuss and voice human rights issues.
Most of us are familiar with the term "human rights," but it is also feels quite distant. The notion itself is well known, but most of us are unable to resonate with it as something connected to ourselves. Perhaps, it is felt that it belongs more in books rather than in reality.
However distant it may feel, human rights are here and now: in concrete reality. A pair of automated doors with buttons placed where a wheelchair user cannot reach, the first question of a survey that can only be answered with the words "male" or "female," a vegan cafeteria on campus that has closed down, a worker’s rest area placed underground with terrible air quality and high humidity, the pressure to perform at a talent show during a freshmen mixer, a sexist joke… The list goes on. Even on campus and within the university community, we come face-to-face with problems related to the human rights agenda, especially those of minorities, like the instances stated above.
Many people may perceive the “rights of minorities” as something that only concerns an extremely small group of people who are distant from themselves. Those “minorities”, however, are here and now—just like the non-minorities. In fact, they may be right next to you. They, however, face challenges and problems due to social institutions and structures that stem from the so-called “normalcy.” On the other hand, this means that the challenges and problems they face can be eliminated—at least considerably—through changes in social institutions and structures.
The most obvious example of these challenges and problems is a non-barrier-free environment. “The term barrier-free” refers to removing barriers to social life for people with disabilities, the elderly, and other minorities. A shuttle bus that is inaccessible to wheelchairs, or a website that relies heavily on images to convey important information which prevents blind people from using a screen reader from decipher the content, are both examples of non-barrier-free environments. These environments are intended only for those who can use both legs to board buses easily and for those who can see visual images, respectively. "Normalcy" is layered onto our society in many ways, and those who do not fit the mold are often excluded from spaces, institutions, and opportunities.
Although society demands “normalcy” like mentioned above, only a few, or no one at all, fits this normalcy in every way. Hence, creating a community that is not solely for "normal humans" but for all of the diverse people that are here and now, is ultimately about creating a community for all of us. I believe this is one of the causes that SHRC exists for.
SHRC is responsible for finding solutions to prevent and alleviate discrimination and human rights violations, implementing projects to raise human rights awareness, and ensuring that the Rights and Diversity Agenda units on campus function properly. Currently, the Rights and Diversity Agenda units include agenda groups that advocate for LGBTQ+, disability, women/gender, labor, and vegan rights, but our agenda is not limited to the ones listed. Last year, we organized a "Rainbow March" to protest Seoul City’s decision to refuse the use Seoul Plaza to host the Seoul Queer Parade. We also established a regular council to improve human rights issues on campus. This year, we plan to participate in regular human rights meetings with the school administration, and work towards the enactment of the Seoul National University Human Rights Charter, among other things.
SHRC’s effort to create a community that guarantees everyone's rights continues. We would like to ask you, the members of SNU community, to keep alert of the current human rights issues within our campus. We also expect that the university administration will be more proactive in ensuring the human rights of members of this community. Please remember, human rights are not a distant issue; it is a matter for those of us who are here and now.
The author is the chairperson at Seoul National University’s student-led Human Rights Council. --Ed.
[Opinion] Disasters reveal a society's true face
Disasters reveal aspects of society that are normally invisible. They identify the mechanisms leading to negative outcomes, expose the values a society prioritizes, show resource allocation, and uncover responses in chaotic and urgent situations.
More importantly, they reveal who makes decisions about a risk and to whom that risk is structurally transferred. In other words, risk reveals power relations within a society. So, what did the Sewol ferry disaster reveal about the nature and power relations in Korean society?
On 16 April, 2014, a 6,800-metric ton vessel capsized and sank on a clear, windless, wave-free day. The crew took no steps to ensure the safety of the passengers, and only escaped to the Coast Guard patrol boat while the ship's standby announcements were being made. The Coast Guard did not communicate with the Sewol crew, let alone order the passengers to leave the ship, and only picked up the passengers who managed to get out on their own, while the Sewol capsized.
The media made a significant error by incorrectly reporting that all passengers had been rescued. Additionally, the president visited the Central Disaster Safety Task Force at 5:15 P.M. and asked uninformed questions, displaying a lack of awareness of the situation. Furthermore, no presidential meetings occurred at the Blue House until 20 April, 2014.
The public hoped that divers could rescue at least one passenger while part of the ship's bow remained above water. However, the Coast Guard lacked deep-sea diving capabilities, and the state failed to provide accurate information or to communicate transparently with the bereaved families. Instead, police were mobilized to monitor and track their movements.
From the day of the tragedy, state intelligence agencies—including the National Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Command, and the police—not only conducted illegal inspections of the bereaved families but also monitored all activities related to the Sewol ferry disaster, including online spaces, government ministries, media organizations, and even the Supreme Court, indiscriminately collecting information and reporting it to higher authorities. On 15 May, 2014, it was revealed that the 'Marine Accident Reporting System Chart' required the NIS to be the first to report any accident.
In order to uncover the truth behind these numerous allegations, the families sought to establish a powerful investigative committee endowed with compulsory investigative and prosecutorial powers. However, the political parties were unwilling to support this, leading to the enactment of a special law that lacked these crucial powers. The Sewol Special Investigation Committee, which was created with great difficulty, faced complete obstruction by the Blue House and the government from its inception until it was forcibly disbanded.
In late 2016, a candlelight protest led to the impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye and the installation of a new government. However, this new administration did not make significant efforts to investigate the Sewol ferry disaster. During the Moon Jae-in administration, the Blue House illegally destroyed documents related to the Sewol ferry, and the remains were not released to the public until five days after they were found. In September, 2022, the investigation by the Special Investigation Committee on Social Disasters concluded without resolving the various suspicions related to the Sewol ferry disaster.
The Sewol ferry tragedy exposed more than just the unsafe operation of passenger ships and the incompetence of the Korean Coast Guard. It revealed that the Coast Guard, whose mission is to protect people's lives, stood by and watched people die. It showed that the media, tasked with delivering facts, could propagate lies that had no basis in reality. It demonstrated that the president could be indifferent—or even hostile—towards a national tragedy, that state agencies could inspect and suppress bereaved families, and that systemic obstruction could hamper the investigative committee established by a special law enacted by the legislature.
Furthermore, the tragedy uncovered a harsh reality within our society: even after bereaved families and citizens fought back against this grave injustice and a new government was installed, the new administration did little to uncover the truth.
After the Sewol ferry tragedy, many people said, “I will remember and I will act.” Ten years later, what should we remember, and what should we do? We should remember the injustice in Korean society, and our actions should aim to change that injustice. That would be true mourning and true memorialization.
On the 10th anniversary of the Sewol ferry tragedy, I hope this will be an opportunity to start a discussion about the character of Korean society as revealed by the tragedy, and to determine what actions should be taken to make that character more just.
The author is a doctoral candidate at Seoul National University’s Department of Sociology and former Investigation Team Leader at the Special Commission on Social Disaster Investigation.--Ed.
Make politics environment-friendly: dealing with street banners
The general election is over, leaving winners and losers, but also loads of wasted street banners. These banners are highly effective media to get messages across to us; with their striking colors and fonts printed on large pieces of hard-wearing synthetic fabric, hardly anyone can fail to recognize them. For a couple of weeks, the streets have been inundated with these banners, promoting politicians’ campaign promises. Even after the election, politicians have more banners hung to express their gratitude for being elected or to apologize for falling short of our expectations.
The voices of politicians do need to be heard by us, as it is our duty to vote for them and to contribute to the actuality of our democracy. However, it is questionable whether the rampant use of banners should be allowed to continue for this cause. The streets are flooded with excessive amounts of banners, which degenerate the city environment in the following ways.
First, they compromise the street view and the city experience. High-frequency advertising through banners does help messages stick in our minds, but it is often too aggressive. The conspicuous colors and substantial sizes of banners hold us back from enjoying the harmonious view of the cityscape. Plus, they’re like repetitive online advertisements that we can’t even skip: we are likely to become fatigued by the bombardment of information we didn’t even ask for. A simple walk down the street thereby becomes more and more overwhelming.
Moreover, it’s been pointed out that the banners pose a potential threat to our safety. As huge panels tied around trees or fences are meant to occupy street space, some block pedestrians’ sight and hinder drivers from properly reading what’s happening on the road. This has led to inconveniences and even injuries.
Last but not least, these banners contaminate the ecosystem. They are made out of polyester, and most of them are buried or burnt after their one-time use. It takes more than a century or two for banners to disintegrate, and during the process, they leave microplastics behind. When burnt, they emit toxic fumes. Despite the critical implications on the environment, the number of wasted banners in previous general elections has escalated from 13,980 in 2016 to 30,580 in 2020 and is projected to be even higher this year.
The national assembly has acknowledged the problem and has made some efforts to reduce the amount of political banners. The amendment of the Outdoor Advertisement Act (옥외광고물법) went into force this January, making progress in stipulating where to allow and where to ban banners, as well as the number of banners that may be used per party.
However, while this amendment caps the number of banners issued by political parties, it doesn’t restrain an individual politician from hanging banners of their own. With this loophole, there could still be a flood of banners produced by individual politicians filling in for their parties. We might have to go through another holiday with banners hung over every corner, saying nothing more than “Enjoy your Chuseok” or “Happy New Year,” so that politicians may give off a friendly impression. We should not risk environmental hazards so politicians may serve their own interests in gaining recognition. More serious change is needed in the current unsustainable use of banners in politics.
Then, what can be done in the future to preserve the environment while maintaining the integrity of our democratic practices? Clearly, the usage of banners must be reduced. This could mainly be done by passing legislation that encourages politicians to use other media to promote their political messages. Replacing banners with online promotions could be a good alternative, as online promotions don’t take up physical space. They wouldn’t be an eyesore or create blind zones, and this would help us reduce plastic waste.
If so, why don’t we replace all physical banners with digitized ones? Turns out, physical banners do have qualities that make them hard to substitute. They’re affordable, easily recognizable, and are accessible to nearly everyone. However, even if banners are a necessity, there should still be supplementary measures aside from just reducing the number of them produced for political use.
It is possible that we make banners out of eco-friendly material. Starting this year, Gimhae, a city in Gyeongnam province, is producing banners for the local government using eco-friendly fabrics, such as biodegradable polyester and a grain-based textile. Both kinds of fabrics decompose in landfills within 3 years, making substantial progress from ordinary polyester’s centuries-long degradation and its harmful byproducts.
There is also a way to upcycle banners. Upcycling refers to reusing trash to make something of higher value. Starting from 2021, Yecheon in Gyeongbuk province, has made sacks out of political banners. Not only is this an achievement for the local sustainability initiatives, but it has also helped the local government to save its budget for disposing of the banners and purchasing sacks. There’s also a project called “Vote for Earth” to turn the election banners into windbreakers, making the best out of the sturdy polyester. With our endless creativity, upcycling could certainly go a long way.
Cutting back on banners is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed for the sake of our daily lives and that of future generations. Political practices, above everything, need to be environmentally sustainable; they’re supposed to protect the people and secure their well-being in the world. For a sustainable democracy, we will have to go step by step, first by publicly discussing and addressing the liability of political banners.
