Another teacher who was a victim of sexual harassment had to leave... Controversy over the effectiveness of the Committee for the Protection of Teachers' Rights

A teacher named Mr. Kim, who worked at a high school in Gyeonggi-do's Hwaseong City, took sick leave on the day of the school's reopening on the 18th. This was due to coming face-to-face with the student who had sent him a sexual harassment letter, which was assigned to his class. Mr. Kim was the sole teacher for this elective course, and the student had to be present in his class.

He proposed several solutions, such as transferring the student to another class, allowing online classes, or hiring a substitute teacher. However, the school declined to accept these suggestions. As a result, no practical measures were taken to ensure the teacher's safety until the day of the school's reopening, and Mr. Kim was forced to resign.

This situation is not unique, as another case occurred in Ulsan last year when a teacher who had sexually assaulted a male student in his high school class resigned after taking sick leave due to the absence of concrete protective measures. Following the Hwaseong case, the Gyeonggi Teachers' Union pointed out that the "core issue of this case is that even after the education protection committee made a decision on classroom replacement, the practical separation between the victim teacher and the harassing student was not achieved."

The union emphasized that the protective measures after the committee's decision demonstrated a gap in the current system. Despite the "Education Protection Committee" name, the effectiveness of the committee is still being questioned. According to a recent survey conducted by the Gyeonggi Teachers' Union, 68.5% of the 130 teachers who had experienced protection committee proceedings said it did "not provide practical assistance."

Out of 1,163 teachers who responded why they did not request protection committee assistance despite experiencing protection committee proceedings, 65.3% cited concerns about "secondary victimization" such as parent complaints or charges of secondary sexual abuse. There are also concerns that the protection committee's authority is limited when the protecting teacher is a perpetrator, as the committee can only request the school principal to issue a "written apology, pledge not to repeat, or special education/psychological counseling."

These measures are ineffective without proper implementation, and the punishment is limited to a fine of up to 3 million won.