Navigating Academia in a Foreign Space: An Interview with Professor Vanessa Lim
Vanessa Lim is a professor in the English Department of SNU, part of the school’s growing international faculty. As she shares her journey that has taken her across the globe from the UK to Korea...
[Opinion] Wishy washy medical reform
Last week, Seoul National University decided to approve its medical students' gap years, almost a year after the students started refusing to attend classes in protest of the government's medical reform initiatives.
SNU became to first university to do so, despite the government's pressure not to. In what appears to be retaliatory measures, the Ministry of Education launched an audit on SNU. The chairperson of the Emergency Committee of SNU Medical Center Professors, Professor Kang Hee-kyung, said it was only right that the school approve the student's gap years. In an interview with campus newspaper, SNU News, professor Kang said "If we do not approve the students' gap years, we have to hold all of them back a year. And that cannot happen."
Eventually, the ministry back down, announcing on 6 Oct. that it would allow students to take a gap year, given that they return for the 2025 spring semester. However, it was a different announcement by the ministry that sparked massive debates. In order to preemptively combat future medical staff shortages that is expected to result from the students' walkout, the ministry said it would mull reducing the medical school curriculum from six years to five.
This proposal sparked criticisms from both the opposition party and the medical community. Suspicions arose that the ministry did not thoroughly consider the impact of such a decision. The medical community argued that five years was not enough time to learn everything one needs to actively save lives, while both colleges and the Ministry of Health said it was not consulted when the Education Ministry drafted the proposal.
Facing harsh backlash, the ministry took a step back on Monday, saying that the proposal did not mean all colleges had to adopt the five-year curriculum. Rather, it meant the government would fully support colleges that wished to do so, according to the Ministry. Criticisms continued that the ministry was hasty in announcing the proposal, and that it was changing its words. Ultimately the ministry retracted its proposal on Tuesday.
But debates concerning the measures did not stop there. Doubts were cast as to whether the Yoon administration was capable of making thorough and thoughtful policy decisions. Suspicions were raised as to whether inter-ministerial communications and inter-cabinet coordination were functional.
However, this is not the first time that different ministries in the Yoon administration failed to unify their voice. Labor reform and gender equality initiatives were all tarnished by communication issues. The Yoon administration has one of the highest rates of policy initiatives that were scrapped before fruition.
Meanwhile, the side effects of the medical students' walkout still linger as questions that need to be answered by the government. As med students return next year, how are universities going to cope with the sudden influx of students and still provide them with quality education? How will the administration address medical staff shortages that arise from a smaller graduating class? Many of the med students that took a gap year enlisted in the military. How will the government deal with shortages of medical officers in the military a couple of years down the line?
More importantly, can the governmen better coordinate and communicate its policies? Can it escape its exclusive attitude and communicate with local universities and the medical community in order to overcome the situation? Only questions remain.
The author is a former Editor-in-Chief and the current Chief Editorial Writer at The SNU Quill. –Ed.
[81th Edition] Letter from the Editor
Dear readers,
For the past couple of years, I have been contemplating the space that The SNU Quill occupies within our largely Korean-speaking university—where our English publication fits into the broader community. It’s kind of funny, considering the sheer vastness of our campus; it took us over an hour just to install two magazine stands across the university grounds (which you can find in the Student Center and Doosan Humanities Hall, by the way).
Still, within the sprawling reaches of our campus, the reality remains: space is limited. When an ahjussi manspreads on the subway, we instinctively shrink back; each claim to space carries inherent consequences for others. Similarly, I found that I’ve been increasingly denying myself the right to fully occupy space. I began dressing in clothes that stand out less, afraid to intrude on others’ visual spaces. I step aside, soften my voice, slump my posture.
But within these pages, I reclaim my rights to project my voice and declare my opinions. And this has always been the ethos of our magazine—to give a platform to those who might otherwise go unheard. With this realization, it became clear to me what The SNU Quill offers to our writers and readers alike. It is a space where we can collectively assert our presence.
The 81st edition’s theme is grounded on “Space.” A new building stands where another once stood, some flourish while others are pushed further into the margins. The inevitable question arises: who gets to take up space, and who decides how it’s allocated? This question is now more pressing than ever. We invite you, dear readers, to join us as we explore the concept of space: how we define it, navigate it, and occupy it.
The cover, captured by our photographer Hye-won, serves as a striking frontispiece capturing this edition’s theme—geometric, energetic, and hopeful. We open SNU Society with an interview featuring Professor Vanessa Lim from the English department, who shares her journey navigating academia in Korea as a foreigner. In our Features section, we explore the challenges faced by youths, Kyopo, and prisoners in Korea, shedding light on the unique struggles they face. Our Arts and Culture section dives into the vibrant world of K-pop, public art, and the secrets behind the chocolate we consume. This edition also features an article by Kim Ha-jin, the first-prize winner of our magazine's very first English Column Writing Competition. His compelling account offers a firsthand look at his experience during Seoul's Pride Parade.
As we delve into our musings over space and identity, it is my hope that you find a sense of belonging within these pages. Afterall, the world calls to you—harsh and exciting—announcing your place in the family of things.
Sincerely,
Min Yun-geun
Bringing Climate Change to the International Court of Justice: A Milestone for Climate Justice
In March 2023, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly passed a resolution to request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to outline each country’s obligations in regard to combatting climate change. Advocated for since 2021 by the Pacific island state Vanuatu, the initial campaign for the resolution was led by Pacific Island Students Fight Climate Change (PISFCC) and gained greater traction from there. The students aimed to raise awareness of the plights faced by the Pacific Island states and to emphasize the necessity of each country fulfilling its climate obligations.
This marks the beginning of a historical moment, as it is the first time that the ICJ is going to advise countries on their legal obligations concerning climate change. Though the advisory opinion given is not legally binding, it does indeed have legal significance on an international scale. The ICJ is to clarify the climate obligations and rights of each state in black-and-white terms, based on the binding international laws of today, which provides legal backing to the climate obligations of each state. The advisory opinion is to be rendered in accordance with the following question:
(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;
(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:
(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?
(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?
If we take those majorly industrialized and densely populated countries as one extreme, the other is some of the island states spread across the different oceans. Examples include the island nations in the Pacific such as Palau, Micronesia, and Vanuatu. These Pacific island states are extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of climate change, especially the rising of sea levels, as most of them are low-lying. The lives of island inhabitants are increasingly threatened by the diminishing amount of land available for housing and farming. Climate change is not just something that is worrying for such people but is an ongoing crisis that is challenging their survival and eroding their basic rights to life. Ironically, these islands are also only responsible for 0.03% of greenhouse gas emissions, in contrast to the top 10 emitters that contribute to more than 60% of the emissions globally. In simple terms, these developing countries are the smallest contributors to climate change yet are suffering its worst consequences brought on by the major emitters. This is the definition of climate injustice.
In the past, the Paris Agreement declared a global effort to limit the rise of global surface temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. However, this global agreement does not come with legal obligations that clarify the consequences a country will face if it neglects the actions required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a national level or even engages in activities that are actively harmful to the environment.
In contrast, bringing the issue of climate change, in such a manner, to the ICJ signifies formal acknowledgment of the existing climate injustice in countries around the world. This opens up the possibility of better defining what a fair share is for each country’s climate obligations and the corresponding mechanisms in place to ensure that every country is fully committed to global climate action. This makes climate action more an achievable necessity than an afterthought. That’s the reason why Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau of Vanuatu stated the following in a statement for the UN: “Vanuatu sees [the] historic resolution as the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law and an era that places human rights and intergenerational equity at the forefront of climate decision-making.”
The concept of “saving our planet together” should not just be a hollow slogan but a sentiment that is reflected in our actual actions. “The more you pollute, the more you pay” is a basic principle that everyone can understand. The issues caused by the major emitters should at no point become a heavy and unreasonable burden on struggling nations, particularly to the extent that their people’s well-being and basic survival are compromised. Major polluters should pay more instead of expecting minor emitters to share the cost equally. Referring the issue to the ICJ is not the final solution to the global threat of climate change. Nonetheless, the ICJ’s advisory opinion should give a clear definition of each country’s legal obligations and how international law can play its role in supervising each country’s progress under this collaborative climate campaign. The advisory opinion is expected to be delivered in 2025, and the dedication of each country toward the stated obligations will then ultimately determine the success of our fight against climate change.
