Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program (17 page)

The Prime Minister's Office Rediscovers JET

At the same time that the tax, insurance, and pension issues were being negotiated, interministerial rivalries resurfaced in dramatic fashion. By 1988
the office of prime minister had been taken over by Takeshita Noboru, a
former English teacher who, unlike Nakasone, had only limited experience
with foreign affairs. Yet in a speech given while visiting Europe in 1988,
Takeshita suddenly promised to include French and German participants in
the JET Program the following year. I happened to visit CLAIR the day
after his announcement, and I found that it had come as a complete surprise to officials there and in the Ministry of Education.

It later became known that his speech had been written by the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs: the diversification of participating countries was part of
the ministry's larger strategy to move beyond bilateral ties with the
United States and to reposition Japan in relation to the European market.
One CLAIR official put it this way: "One of the ideas of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister's Office was that while the ties between the Japan and the United States were strong, the ties between Japan
and Europe were less so. In trying to think of various approaches for
strengthening ties with Europe, it was decided that the JET Program was
one way to go about it."

In any event, it was Ministry of Education officials who were put on the
spot by the announcement, and they quickly charged that in emphasizing
the contribution of the JET program to Japan's diplomatic relations the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs was ignoring domestic realities. While a number of Japanese private secondary schools offer French and German, English so dominates foreign language instruction in public schools that
finding places for the French and German participants was virtually impossible. In fact, fewer than a dozen French and German participants were
invited in 1989; much to their chagrin, most of this token number ended
up teaching English in addition to a few classes in their native language.
One assistant French teacher reports that he was told by the Japanese consulate in Paris that none of the French JET participants would need to teach English, but he ended up teaching sixteen hours per week of English,
and virtually no French, for the entire year. In addition, the application
forms were all in English, as were the employment contracts they had to
sign. Not surprisingly, French and German participants-who, as a rule,
were very highly qualified-began applying in much greater numbers for
the CIR portion of the program, in which they could assist prefectures or
municipalities that had French and German sister cities.'

The invitation to include France and Germany had another ironic complication as well, as the Canadian embassy had requested that French
Canadian participants be allowed into the program. Now that France had
been admitted, the Japanese government felt that the few slots available for
French teachers had to be reserved for participants from France; predictably, the Canadians were not pleased.

NEGATIVE PUBLICITY AND THE STRUGGLE TO CONTROL
THE MEDIA

The sensitivity to foreign pressure that characterizes politics at the national level raises the stakes riding on the success of the JET Program. Favorable publicity is an important means of achieving the program's political goals; on a practical level, it also helps guarantee a large number of
high-quality applicants. Having invested considerable resources in the JET
Program, Tokyo bureaucrats certainly hoped for positive coverage.

Yet media assessments both within Japan and abroad were very mixed
during the early years of the program. The English-language newspapers
in Japan-especially the Japan Times, the Mainichi, and the Daily Yomi-
uri-became sites for a vigorous debate on its pros and cons.

The Wakabayashi Controversy

Just over a month after the program began, Professor Wakabayashi Shunsuke of the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies wrote an article voicing
the fear of the teachers' union that Japanese jobs might ultimately be
threatened by the JET Program. Blasting the government for perpetuating
an "ugly system that allows amateurs to teach," Wakabayashi argued in
the Japan Times that "all teachers should be licensed for any subject they
teach." He lamented that since Japanese teachers are very polite toward
foreigners, they "will be forced to busy themselves taking care of the
young people" to the detriment of their own classes. He pointed out the
folly of assuming that students can learn English with only three classes a week and went on to argue for a position long held by the teachers' union:
"it is more urgent that the government send as many Japanese English
teachers as possible to other countries."10

Reaction to his attack came swiftly and from several quarters. Numerous ALTS wrote letters taking issue with various points. Kimberly
Kennedy in Nagasaki questioned Wakabayashi's reference to JET participants as "boys and girls," noting that the men and women on JET were
subjected to a careful screening process and included people with master's
degrees and years of teaching experience. Michelle Long in Toyama took a
different tack, pointing out that "Amateurs teaching English in public
schools is a problem that is more a result rather than a cause of the sorry
state of English education in Japan." Andrew Barnes wrote in from Fujioka,
Gunma, that Wakabayashi's view "undermines the cultural and educational importance of the JET Program.""

On the Japanese side, lizuka Shigehiko, an independent researcher in
English language education, published a rejoinder to Wakabayashi titled
"We Welcome JET Teachers." lizuka noted that although quite a few Japanese teachers of English oppose JET, the majority are eager to study their
own subject and want to be proficient in speaking English. He criticized
Wakabayashi for suggesting that the government should invite only professionals while knowing full well that specialists in English as a second
language (ESL) are scarce even in English-speaking countries. lizuka continued: "Is [Wakabayashi] afraid that Japanese teachers of English will lose
their jobs if the influx of JET teachers continues as the government is reported planning? If so, he is very right in saying, 'the people are far from
being internationalized,' and he is typically one of them."12

All of this squabbling finally led the secretary-general of CLAIR to
write to the Japan Times. Noting that "there is considerable misunderstanding regarding the JET Program and its purpose," he proceeded to
downplay the Ministry of Education's view of the program. "The JET Program's objectives encompass much more than English education," he asserted, and he was "confident that all 848 JET participants ... upon returning home will contribute much to improving the understanding of Japan
abroad."13 One ALT addressed the last claim in a letter published the following month: "My response is, Don't be so sure. Greater understanding of
Japan does not necessarily mean greater empathy.... I don't accept any
postcontractual obligations for public relations work on Japan's behalf." 14

Wakabayashi's article highlighted several issues that became widely debated. It called attention to the program's failure to actively recruit candidates with teaching credentials or to particularly encourage those with ESL degrees to apply (though, to be sure, holders of such credentials were not
actively discouraged from applying). On this issue, the views of Ministry
of Education officials shaped policy. They felt that experienced teachers
were too set in their own teaching strategies to adapt effectively to Japanese schools.

Wakabayashi's reference to the JET participants as "boys and girls" also
threw into relief the government's tendency to see the program as primarily
geared toward people not yet fully mature. Obviously, this tended to annoy
many of the participants themselves, just out of college and feeling ready to
take on the world. Yet JET participants' perception of themselves as "adults"
notwithstanding, I found Wakabayashi's view to be widely shared among
Japanese administrators and teachers.15 In fact, although the term "Jetto"
(JET) is sometimes used in Japanese renditions of the name of the program,
the official title in most ministry documents is Gaikoku Seinen Shochi Jigyo
(literally, "a program to invite youth from abroad"). Similarly, "AJET" for
many years was translated into Japanese as Gaikokujin Seinen No Kai (the
Association of Foreign Youth), a rendition that AJET fought vigorously;
they eventually succeeded in changing it to Jetto Puroguramu Sankasha No
Kai (JET Program Participants' Organization). In a society in which age and
experience still go a long way in determining the level of respect one is accorded, the JET participants were widely seen as greenhorns. Many had not
experienced life as shakaijin (persons living on their own and holding down
a job) prior to their employment in the JET Program. Moreover, as Merry
White has shown, Japanese have high expectations for individuals in this
age range and are unlikely to see any testing of ideas and social experimentation in a favorable light." I often heard the Japanese criticizing JET participants' behavior as youthful self -centeredness.

Yet in spite of their difficulties in dealing with the "youth factor," the Japanese broadly agreed that younger persons were more desirable. One senior
curriculum specialist in the Ministry of Education explained, "If the JET participants are too old, Japanese teachers feel threatened. Also, people just out
of college are more flexible and can adapt easier to Japanese schools." This
sentiment was strikingly demonstrated by CLAIR's 1988 decision to set an
upper age limit of thirty-five for participation in the JET Program. Although
the rule had been in effect in the early years of the MEF Program, it was
struck down by a lawsuit against the New York-based Council for International Educational Exchange. Now that the Japanese government was in
charge of the selection process, lawsuits in U.S. courts were less of a threat.

We should note, however, that the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of
Education supported the age limit for very different reasons. To the extent
that Foreign Affairs officials saw the program as a vehicle for increasing foreign understanding of Japan, it was desirable to catch applicants at a
formative stage in their lives-preferably young people who might later
take up leadership positions in their respective countries. But Education officials wished to select the kind of participant most acceptable to Japanese
teachers and educational administrators. In both cases, youth best met their
concerns; in spite of complaints from various quarters, the age limit remained generally in effect.'?

The Mie Incident

While Wakabayashi was harangued for his opinions about the JET Program, no one accused him of intentionally misrepresenting it. In two subsequent cases, however, reports on the JET Program proved to be extremely
misleading and one-sided. On 5 November 1988, the views of the teachers'
union on the JET Program received another airing in a Yomiuri Shimbun
article titled "Verbal Abuse of American Teacher Leads to Student Expulsion, Controversy." According to the article, a Japanese student was expelled from a Mie prefectural high school for shouting "Speak Japanese!"
(Nihongo de shabere!) and other insults at an ALT identified as "B-san."
The author blamed the incident, which "has once again brought into relief
the problems connected with ALTs," on the ALT's favoring those students
who were motivated in English and ignoring or treating with "Americanstyle discipline" those students who couldn't follow the lesson.'8

The article itself, however, supplies virtually no details; in fact, it is simply a summary of critical reports given about ALTs at the annual meeting
of the Mie Prefectural Teachers' Union. The author concludes, "Most ALTs
have received a high-class education and come to Japan with enthusiasm,
but suddenly come up against exam English, some teachers who have a
'gaijin complex,' and a society that lets low achievers get by-none of
which they can understand. While the situation in Mie is not as extreme as
that in Nagasaki Prefecture, in which three-fifths of the ALTs returned
home early in despair, trouble spots arising from the different views of education seem to be everywhere."

After the article appeared, CLAIR officials visited the site and talked at
length with the ALT, the principal, and the board of education. As it turned
out, the student was expelled because of a cumulative history of poor class
work, disruptive behavior, excessive absences, tardiness, and verbally abusive language toward many of the teachers. The ALT in question had never
been interviewed by the Yomiuri Shimbun reporter, and the student had
stopped attending her class more than two months prior to being expelled.
She had had two unpleasant interactions with him, however. During the first term she had taken the student down to the teachers' room, because he
was thirty minutes late to class with no written excuse. The second confrontation took place in the nurse's room: "I walked into the nurse's room
to meet with another teacher and 'A-kun' was there. He yelled "#!gai-
jin@Y! at me, I gave him a disgusted look, walked by him and the nurse
told him to be quiet. A-kun left and I met with my teacher."19 While the
ALT's actions in the first instance could be seen as problematic by other
teachers, neither of these interactions had anything to do with the student's expulsion.

The ALT herself wrote an open letter to JET participants: "I am the same
'B-san' that has been asked to give countless speeches on 'The Internationalization of Mie-ken,' and yet was a victim of a worst-case scenario of just
how 'uninternationalized' people really are. In effect, the mass media got
away with an article that bordered on nationalism and racism."" CLAIR
officials also sent a plea to JET participants in the CLAIR Newsletter:

As many of you may already have heard or read, an ALT in Mie Prefecture was described (by Yomiuri Shimbun) as being responsible for a ist
year student being asked to withdraw from his high school. Such, however, was not the case. The ALT was regrettably mentioned by the principal as also having had trouble with the student and was drawn into
the center of the fray to suit the interests of the mass media.... While
everyone directly involved knows that the ALT has become a scapegoat,
CLAIR asks for your help in setting the record straight when questioned about the matter by teachers, supervisors or the press.21