October 30, 2015
The Open University of Japan, a major education institution for correspondence courses, deleted one of the questions for an exam from its website, claiming that the question is inappropriate as it is critical of the Abe government, Akahata reported on October 30. The professor in charge of the exam opposes this move as a violation of academic freedom.
The deleted question is a part of the exam in Japanese art history, asking about Japanese painters who were oppressed by or forced to cooperate with the government during the war.
The question states that governments often launch wars under the pretext of protecting peace and the safety of people, as was the case with the 1931 Manchurian Incident in which Japan invaded China. It also states that even prior to the incident, the Imperial Japanese government began oppressing the freedom of expression and tightening control over information because that is the most effective way to deprive people of their right to critical thinking. The question goes on to state that given these historical facts, recent pronouncements claiming the safety of people should be critically evaluated.
The president of the OUJ on October 23 on the university’s website announced that the university authorities decided to remove the question from the website in order to maintain political neutrality based on the requirement of the Broadcast Law.
In response to an Akahata inquiry, a university official replied that the university made the decision to delete the question on its own initiative not because it was instructed to do so by a government agency, such as the Education Ministry.
OUJ Guest Professor Sato Yasuhiro, who wrote the question and also teaches at the University of Tokyo, criticized the university authorities’ act for violating academic freedom. He said that he expressed his intent to resign from the OUJ next spring.
Nagata Kozo, former NHK producer and Musashi University professor, said that the Broadcast Law was established based on reflection on the historical past when broadcasters were used as tools to promote government propaganda campaigns during the war. He stressed that it is totally inappropriate for the OUJ to cite the law as the reason for oppressing opinions critical of government policies.
The deleted question is a part of the exam in Japanese art history, asking about Japanese painters who were oppressed by or forced to cooperate with the government during the war.
The question states that governments often launch wars under the pretext of protecting peace and the safety of people, as was the case with the 1931 Manchurian Incident in which Japan invaded China. It also states that even prior to the incident, the Imperial Japanese government began oppressing the freedom of expression and tightening control over information because that is the most effective way to deprive people of their right to critical thinking. The question goes on to state that given these historical facts, recent pronouncements claiming the safety of people should be critically evaluated.
The president of the OUJ on October 23 on the university’s website announced that the university authorities decided to remove the question from the website in order to maintain political neutrality based on the requirement of the Broadcast Law.
In response to an Akahata inquiry, a university official replied that the university made the decision to delete the question on its own initiative not because it was instructed to do so by a government agency, such as the Education Ministry.
OUJ Guest Professor Sato Yasuhiro, who wrote the question and also teaches at the University of Tokyo, criticized the university authorities’ act for violating academic freedom. He said that he expressed his intent to resign from the OUJ next spring.
Nagata Kozo, former NHK producer and Musashi University professor, said that the Broadcast Law was established based on reflection on the historical past when broadcasters were used as tools to promote government propaganda campaigns during the war. He stressed that it is totally inappropriate for the OUJ to cite the law as the reason for oppressing opinions critical of government policies.
