1 Introduction

1.1 The Purpose of the Study

Being a newcomer to any existing society can be a stressful experience. According to Abraham Maslow, people have a basic “need to belong (Maslow 1943),” and they often rely on communities and familial ties in order to satisfy this need. This is especially important in collectivistic cultures such as the Koreansociety where personal connections and jeong (Korean expression for the feeling of love, sentiment, sympathy, heart…attachment, bond, affection, and bondage) among the in-group members are important in one’s social status and everyday life (McGoldrick et al. 2005; Chung and Cho 2012). However, when a person immigrates to another country, in other words, when an individual is uprooted from his/her community and is relocated to a new environment, those bondages are removed, and one faces new tasks to form new relationships to find belongingness.

In this era of globalization, most of the people in the world are subject to experiencing either being a newcomer to a community or the host of these newcomers. Although the newcomers would want to be welcomed by the host cultures, many times it may not always be an easy task for the host cultures to accept sudden changes caused by these newcomers. The current study seeks to examine the experience of immigrants in Korea in order to provide helpful information to develop more effective tools for multicultural education and to enhance human rights-based approach to education for the general public. Given this context the present author conducted a survey-based field research in order to ascertain the various discrimination cases and the needs of the marriage-based immigrants and labor migrants as part of the efforts for suggesting a new human rights-based direction to the multicultural policy makers in Korea. In this endeavor the perspectives of the immigrants will be reflected on the research.

In the era of globalization, South Korea is continuously becoming a multicultural society. Given the fact that South Korean education has long emphasized the homogeneous identity of the Korean society, the discussion of multiculturalism associated with transborder migration is drawing constant attention these days. Traditionally, the state-led top-down policies set the educational contents and boundaries of the school systems in Korea. However, the new educational environments which are closely tied with the changing global political economy and the increasing migrants from other countries encourage the Korean society to go through a testing ground for seriously considering the various challenges for multiculturalism. This change of perspective can be interpreted as an important effort to build a more democratic civil society in Korea. When it comes to educational challenges, it is important to note that “multicultural education has a global component that seeks to help students develop cosmopolitan attitudes and become effective world citizens” (Banks 2009, p.14). In this respect it is also essential to nurture the competence of understanding the state of affairs from migrants’ perspectives.

From 2009 to 2016, the total number of foreigners residing in the country has increased from approximately 1.2 million to 2 million (Statistics Korea 2016). This rapid increase of the population with migrant backgrounds is mainly a result of the growing number of marriage immigrants and labor migrants. Consequently, the coexistence of people of various languages, cultures, skin colors, and religions is emerging as an important social issue. Now that the families with interracial marriages and labor migrants are on the rise, Korean society enters the stage in which it must acknowledge and embrace various conflicts and cultural differences. The influx of mostly female marriage immigrants from East and Southeast Asian countries into Korea in the past 10 years is attributable to its unique demographic structure and the unbalanced social structure between urban and rural areas of the country. In Korea, the continued influx of migrant workers and marriage immigrants is increasing the number of multicultural or multiethnic families and giving rise to related problems, which have implications for future policy development. There is no question that Korea’s rapid transition into and its future as a multicultural society pose great challenges for the Korean people and require both material and time investment for the society to adapt itself to multiculturalism. To adapt to the future society that is approaching at a rapid pace, Korea needs to make proactive nationwide efforts to establish the infrastructure required to support a multicultural society. The infrastructure should cover a wide range of social services, including education, medical services, welfare, and legal support. In addition to that, Korea needs to build an organic cooperation network that connects the central government to educational and training institutions, local bodies related to multiculturalism, and multicultural family support centers. Korea, a country that has a long history of homogeneity, can find it particularly difficult to adapt to a multicultural society of the future. A recent nationwide survey by the Korea Ministry of Family and Gender Equality (2016) shows that Korea’s multicultural receptiveness of the general public is still lower than that of major advanced countries.

In response to this phenomenon, many multicultural education programs have been initiated in South Korea under the supervision of public organizations and civil societies. However, there is still a dearth of multicultural education programs designed for the general Korean public. The target population and topics addressed in most of the existing programs are limited to immigrants only and provide unidirectional education programs for them to fit into the Korean society (e.g., to learn the Korean language and sociocultural adjustment) or merely introduce ethnic cultural practices to the general public (Lee et al. 2012; Lee 2012; Kim and Kim 2012). Yet, the reports of adjustment issues experienced by ethnic minorities in South Korea have not diminished, because at the core of their adjustment problems is the experience of discrimination and prejudice expressed by the general public (Kim 2015). In order to shift the current trend and introduce a new paradigm of coexistence and cooperation in the multicultural society that South Korea is becoming, migrants’ experience of discrimination should be acknowledged and publicized from a human rights perspective in order to develop multicultural education programs that address the core of the current issue. Accordingly, the current study aims to analyze the ethnic/racial discrimination experienced by the immigrants in South Korea. The results are expected to provide information on the reality of discrimination experience in the country and contribute to improving the effectiveness of the current multicultural education policies.

2 Discrimination as Violation of Human Rights

According to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (United Nations 2015), “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” They continue by defining human rights as follows:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

The violation of human rights occurs “when any state or non-state actor breaches any part of the UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law.” As of 2010, approximately 3% of the world’s population, which is about 214 million, is living abroad (United Nations 2013). In the International Migration Report (United Nations 2013), this number has continuously been increasing, and the phenomenon can be attributed to voluntary and involuntary reasons. Generally, educational and economic issues account for voluntary reasons, whereas political issues, torture, and persecution are considered involuntary reasons. Due to the heightened local conflicts within countries, widely shared information about migration, and decreased expenses for migration with the development of transportation and communication, the migration-related issues are becoming more prominent.

Despite the fact that the number of migrants is increasing worldwide, their basic human rights are often ignored due to their status as social minorities. Amnesty International (2006) has listed rights that should be secured for migrants, which includes the following: right to live, right to forbid torturing, right to make independent decisions, right to ban racial discrimination, and right to have beliefs and religions. The efforts to protect these minority population’s human rights first occurred during the World War II. The UN World Human Rights Declaration (United Nations 1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations 1966) are the results of these efforts. Moreover, the international society has signed various international contracts and initiated the foundation of related organizations.

South Korea has recently been showing interests in immigrants’ human rights issues as multiculturalization continues to be a critical social issue (cf. National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea 2010). With the steady growth of foreign population and the associated struggle for labor and human rights, the traditional discourse of social, political, and cultural exclusivity is being shifted to a discourse of inclusivity (cf. Lim 2010:53). Watson (2010) also persuasively argues that multiculturalism in Korea is a state-led response to the political and economic changes of the global environment. It is also argued that the top-down multicultural policies in Korea have been driven by “a coalition of vested neo-liberal and conservative interests to create and sustain capitalistic competition” in the South Korean labor market (cf. Watson 2010). This in turn signifies that the multicultural perspectives backed by the grassroots movements of the civil societies are not well represented in the policy making process in South Korea.

Given this situational background, the institutional framework for the multicultural society has not been securely established in the country, yet. As for Japan, who values one-race and one-culture, which is similarly valued in the Korean culture, they have continuously been practicing specific policies for the current Japanese public. As the number of labor immigrants increased rapidly, they have started to implement the “multicultural coexistence policies (Nagy 2015).” In Japan, however, this new plan is criticized in the framework of a liberal democratic society. It is sometimes argued that it will be difficult to implement equal opportunity and outcome stylized multicultural coexistence initiatives (Nagy 2015, p. 14).

As for Germany, they have been practicing their migrant policies after having carefully considered their current situation and the country’s benefits (Bauder 2008). In 2005 they have announced the New Immigration Law (Ger. Zuwanderungsgesetz) and prepared an institutional framework for securing immigrants’ human rights by pulling in professional human resources, simplifying the immigration application process, and implementing an immigrant integration policy. Multiculturalism in Korea and in Germany seems to share some similarities. It began as a countermeasure to discriminatory, nationalistic discourse and physical attacks on migrants. In the case of Germany, a multicultural education was not implemented from the start. It has traditionally maintained a nationality law based on single ethnicity. However, many migrant or guest workers who have been employed on temporary contracts increasingly prolonged their stays and even invited their families from the home countries. As they eventually did not return to their native countries, Germany naturally made transition to a multicultural society and reformed its policy accordingly. For example, German government has been changing immigration laws and policies since the late 1990s during the reign of the former Bundeskanzler Gerhardt Schröder.

Language education, in particular, was a crucial part in the policy of protecting migrants’ human rights in Germany. According to de Cillia and Busch (2006), the interest in migrant languages began in the domain of language in education when it became obvious that “migration could not be considered a temporary phenomenon.” Early research within the multicultural paradigm was argued to be mainly concerned with language acquisition and bi- or multilingual education. For the most part, migration and mobility are no longer interpreted as temporary phenomena but as a consequence of the process of globalization (de Cillia and Busch 2006). The characteristic of language education for children of migrant families until the 1990s was that it was integrated into the school system that uses only German but, at the same time, aimed at maintaining the children’s “ability to adapt” when they return to their native lands and protecting their “cultural identity” (Gogolin et al. 2003). The tools for carrying out this “dual strategy” were “German as a second language courses (preparation courses/special courses)” and “supplementary native language classes.” However, the German government’s policy has been changing, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research later encouraged “multicultural education at schools.” With the passage of time, the possibility of these children going back to their own countries was no longer taken into consideration. Instead, each of these multicultural children was viewed as a national human resource with bilingual or even multilingual skills, and “native language classes” were opened to support them. In other words, a new perspective that the language skills of migrant children should be utilized for all children has taken root (e.g., the concept of a “language class for all” in the Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia). This move in the language education policy can be argued to broaden the perspective of the linguistic human rights. In this case, the “Development of a European language Portfolio (Ger. Europäisches Portfolio für Sprachen)” can be seen as an example. Yet, in implementing policies supporting multilingual skills, the abilities of teachers and the qualities of teaching materials are rising as major issues. Especially when it comes to practical elementary school subjects like history and social studies, developing multicultural curricula and revising syllabuses also play an important role (cf. Gogolin et al. 2003).

The multilingual education practice employed in Germany has a direct implication for Korean situations in the educational framework of human rights protection. In Korea, there is a new population of students who arrive after the age of adolescence (Seong 2011). They tend to display much slower rate of adjustment and acquisition of Korean, and therefore, a closer attention and a broader perspective is required for these so-called accompanied/midway-arrival immigrant children different from the existing ones who were born in Korea. For example, for the accompanied/midway-arrival immigrant children who have already acquired the culture and language in their country of origin, their education should receive special attention that is distinguished from the one received by other multiracial children born in Korea. For those who are at the age of adolescence, there should be a greater educational emphasis on developing self-identity and the ability to form social relationships than those who are below the age of adolescence. Moreover, the current school programs for the multiracial family students should be examined further. Nowadays, schools in Korea tend to focus on English for the bilingual education requirement. However, this may merely be an alternative exit for solving problems such as lack of human resources for systematic bilingual education. For these reasons, professional teacher development for [heritage] language education is immediately called for in order to carry out effective bilingual education for the accompanied/midway-arrival immigrant children. Thus, bilingual education for the migrant children constitutes an important part of linguistic human rights, when it comes to school education.

Among many countries, Canada could be considered most successful in securing immigrants’ human rights (Madsen 2015). They have carried out immigrant integration policies by presenting the position of “multiculturalism” and structurally managing foreigners’ departure and arrival according to the “Immigration and Refugee Protection Law.” Moreover, their immigration policies are managed according to the frame of Convention of International Human Rights and the Canadian Bill of Human Rights. By considering the cases of aforementioned countries, it is now time for South Korea to examine its current status and find directions and means to secure immigrants’ human rights in its unique cultural context. In the following, the present author demonstrates the method and the outcome of a survey-based field research in order to ascertain the various discrimination cases and the needs of the migrants in Korea.

3 Method

3.1 Research Design, Participants, and Data Collection

In order to examine a general trend of discrimination experienced by immigrants, a survey was conducted among the immigrants. The target population of the study was the immigrants who have moved to South Korea. This population included labor immigrants, international marriage immigrants, and children and youths of multicultural families. In an effort to raise sample’s validity and its response rate, the survey was distributed by schools’ vice-commissioners who were in charge of multicultural education at their respective office of education in 16 different cities and provinces throughout the nation. In addition, the teachers of schools that run multicultural education policy research and the teachers who received educators’ multicultural education programs at the Multicultural Education Center helped distribute the survey. The survey was conducted in September 2014, and for each of the division that responded, 100 copies were distributed. The final number of all the collected responses was 78.

3.2 The Process of Developing Research Tool

The main research tool for the current study was survey, which was written in Korean. The participants who were not fluent in Korean completed the survey with a help of their teachers, counselors, researchers, or co-workers. It was difficult to find existing tools designed specifically for the same purpose of the current study in South Korea. As a result, a rough draft was created based on human rights perception research, immigrant human rights reports, and research on multicultural teacher education effectiveness. Then the draft was revised after the researcher has discussed them with experts (i.e., focus group interview) by considering its compatibility with the Korean culture and the purpose of the current study.

Specifically, the questions in the survey were considered to provide the standards for assessing the immigrants’ human rights issues. They were created based on previous research such as “The Basic Plans for the National Human Rights Policies (The Korean Government 2007)” and “The Multicultural Society and Constitution (National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea 2010).” Moreover, the questions were developed through specifying everyday incidents of discrimination experienced by immigrants that were widely reported across various studies on minority human rights issues (National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea 2008, 2009; National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea Gwangju Local Office 2007, 2010).

3.3 Method for Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed by a statistical program SPSS WIN. For the descriptive analysis, frequency and percentage were obtained. The average and standard deviation were calculated and analyzed for the responses on perception and opinions.

Results

A total of 78 immigrants have responded to the survey. Among the 78 immigrants (including naturalized citizens after immigration), 17.9%(n = 14) self-identified as Chinese, 16.7%(n = 13) as Koreans, 10.2%(n = 8) as Vietnamese, and 6.4%(n = 5) as Filipinos.

As for the questions regarding the attitude of the Korean society toward the immigrants, 55%(n = 43) responded “Somewhat discriminating” and 10%(n = 8) responded “Very discriminating (Chart 1).” As for the mechanisms of discrimination, skin color (35.8%, n = 28) and class (28.2%, n = 22) scored the highest (Chart 2

Chart 1 Perception of the Korean society’s attitude toward the immigrants
Full size table
Chart 2 Mechanisms of discrimination perceived by immigrants
Full size table

). By using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “completely disagree”; 5 = “completely agree”) for the statement, “there is a great amount of conflict between the immigrants and the general Koreans in South Korea,” it was slightly higher than neutral (average = 3.4).

When more detailed human rights violation cases were asked, bullying, ridiculing, humiliating, limiting one’s educational rights, limiting one’s cultural activities, and limiting participation in various activities were reported relatively frequently (for both children and adults) (Chart 3). As for the questions that only applied to adults, unfair payment, forced labor, and violation of property rights were most frequently observed (Chart 3).

Chart 3 The experience of human rights violation case experiences
Full size table

When they were asked how they responded to human rights violation cases, asking for help to family members, others who came from the same country, and religious leaders could be categorized as “help request through one’s personal means.” On the other hand, help requests to police officers, human rights organizations, immigrant support centers, counselors, social workers, and teachers for students were categorized as “help request through official means.” Complaining to their family members in their countries of origin or staying silent and hiding the human rights violence cases were all categorized as “passive coping.” As a result, most of them responded to violation of human rights with personal or passive means rather than through the official means (Chart 4).

Chart 4 Responses to human rights violation (multiple responses were allowed)
Full size table

Among those who talk to their family members in their countries of origin, or those who stay silent without telling anyone, 30 of them responded that they did so because “they did not think it was a big deal,” which was 40.8%. Twenty of them responded “because there were nowhere for me to ask for help,” which was 20.4% (Chart 5).

Chart 5 Reasons for selecting personal means or passive coping strategies
Full size table

4 Discussion

The South Korean society is undoubtedly being diversified with a growing number of foreigners migrating to the country for various reasons. Most of these foreigners enter the country for the purpose of long-term residence (Statistics Korea 2016) either as labor migrants or marriage migrants as a spouse of a Korean. These families of a foreigner and a Korean spouse are officially referred to as “multicultural families,” and they are becoming a vital part of the South Korean society. In the midst of this societal change, what is concerning is that most of the labor and marriage migrants come from developing countries that are often deemed inferior economically and culturally in the eyes of most Koreans. This kind of stereotype can be manifested in various behaviors, often in the form of discrimination, which is clearly a violation of human rights (cf. Starkey and Osler 2009, p. 350). However, most of the current multicultural education programs are focused on educating the migrants to assimilate and have overlooked the seriousness of discrimination they could have experienced. Since discrimination is both consciously and unconsciously exercised by the general public, the general public would need to become aware of the types of discrimination experienced by migrants. As the first step, how discrimination is specifically experienced by the migrants and their children would need to be understood. Accordingly, the current study examined the discrimination cases experienced by marriage and labor migrants and their children in an effort to raise the awareness of the importance and necessity of human rights education programs that address the issue of discrimination on migrants in Korea.

As a result, more than the majority, 65% of the participants, reported that they viewed the attitude of the South Korean society as being somewhat or very discriminating (Chart 1). They thought the discrimination was exercised largely due to different skin color, low economic status, and their country of origin. This result suggests that the general Korean public has a tendency to discriminate foreigners based on socioeconomic and ethnic factors that are often difficult to change, which are also critical parts of migrants’ identity (i.e., who they are and where they come from). The fact that their skin color and clothes (32.1%), country of origin and the people (57.7%), food, and language (38.5%) were ridiculed and criticized strongly attest to the fact that multicultural education that generates respect for diverse cultures and cultural practices is urgently needed. If the migrants who participated in this survey feel that they are discriminated, they are likely to have a low sense of belongingness in the host country. However, the education programs should not solely be centered on outwardly shown cultural practices, but should address the issues of human rights. In other words, merely familiarizing and being exposed to different cultural practices may not be adequate. From a human rights perspective, the education should involve the idea that however different cultures may be, no one culture is inferior or superior to other cultures. Moreover, the idea that some lives and cultures are worth less than others should be tackled. For the contexts in which the migrants were discriminated for both adults and children, most of the participants experienced discrimination in the form of being isolated or bullied at work or school (70.5%). This implies that they may often be left alone, feeling disconnected from their social environment and that they could suffer from loneliness and lack of social capital. Future multicultural education policies could consider these findings by creating opportunities for the immigrants to connect among themselves, their original family members, as well as the native Korean neighbors.

Next, for adults’ discrimination experienced at workplaces, they reported that other people have taken care of their money and property even though they did not want them to (40.6%). They also reported being forced to work overtime, run extra errands, and work on weekends (25%). Some of them even reported that they were paid less than the mainstream Koreans even when they have worked for the same amount of hours (21.9%). In order to address the discrimination happening in this part of the society, the multicultural education programs and policies designed from a human rights perspective should be provided for the employers and co-workers in a wide array of workplaces. Especially, people taking care of their money and property even though they did not want them to do so seem to show how much these “other people” distrust the immigrants’ ability to manage resources as well as their unwillingness to grant them the responsibility and power to do so. For this particular point, if immigrants do lack the ability to learn new skills and manage resources, they should be educated. Then, the awareness and willingness to trust and share equal opportunities by the employers and co-workers working with multicultural population would need to be addressed.

Finally, once the migrants have experienced cases of discrimination, they most frequently turned for help from personal connections (49.2%) or remained passive about the situation (29%) instead of asking for official help. They did so mainly because they did not think it was a big deal (40.8%) and they did not know where to ask for help (20.4%). Other opinions were that because they did not want to make a big deal out of it, asking for help was no use, and they were afraid of retaliation. While discrimination is clearly a violation of human rights, without being educated, when it becomes one’s everyday life, its seriousness may not be apparent even to the victim. The awareness of every one’s equal human rights should be educated to both the potential oppressors and the oppressed. Also, the fact that they did not know where to ask for help is another critical point that needs to be addressed. Even if they have experienced discrimination, they do not know who to speak to or where to turn for official help. It is true that at the societal level, the issue of discrimination and human rights violation has not been discussed or promoted as widely as other social issues such as theft and bribery. The concept of discrimination as human rights violation and where to ask for help should be educated and discussed openly and frequently both to the immigrants and the general Korean public.

The current study has a few limitations that should be addressed in the future studies. First, the size of the sample was limited and thus is difficult to be generalized even though the sample was relatively randomly selected. A greater number of sample sizes would enable the consideration of the unique characteristics and detailed analysis of different ethnic and age group. However, overall the current study was able to show how discrimination is being experienced by some of the immigrants in South Korea and their responses to such experience through relatively detailed questions regarding discrimination with simple analyses. This kind of study has been rare in the Korean multicultural education policy research. The results are expected to contribute to the development of multicultural education programs and policies regarding discrimination from a human rights perspective. In order to shift the current multicultural education program and bring in a new paradigm of coexistence and cooperation in the multicultural society that Korea is becoming on top of protecting migrants’ other rights and interests, the general public’s acknowledgment of human rights issues and cultivation of welcoming attitudes toward immigrants would be critical. Specifically, the following aspects found in the current study are suggested for further consideration: (1) migrants’ relationship with other migrants, family of origin and native Korean neighbors to prevent and eliminate discrimination resulting in isolation, (2) promoting migrants’ ability to manage resources, (3) fostering trust among native Koreans and migrants, (4) raising the awareness of discrimination as human rights violation, and (5) guiding the migrants to finding official help.

As Starkey and Osler (2009) put it, citizenship education was introduced as a response to racial discrimination in Europe. The issue of racism was clearly expressed in Europe as a threat to democracy and to peace in the region and the world (Starkey and Osler 2009, p. 350). Thus, it is important to teach the matter of racial discrimination as human rights violation to the general public in the school subject of citizenship education from early on.

5 Conclusion and Some Further Issues

The discrimination data from the survey-based field research implies that the character and contents of immigrants’ daily human rights violation cases in Korea vary widely. There are areas that are more vulnerable to human rights violation than others depending on general understanding of social and educational meanings, immigrants’ reasons for immigration, economic status, level of family’s social and emotional support, and their readiness for residence in Korea. Besides the discriminations attested in the surveys, most of the marriage immigrants who participated in this survey have been also experiencing problems in communication in Korea. The results indicate that there are needs for expansion of Korean language education support programs. The immigrants were also highly interested in their children’s education, especially in receiving learning support through afterschool programs or programs at public institutions such as multicultural family support centers. In order to resolve the issues of discrimination at school, marriage immigrants felt that there should be stronger multicultural education programs at both the societal and school level while increasing the interests of teachers. Moreover, they thought that the interests and attitude of these teachers could influence children’s school life. This would be taken to mean that multicultural or intercultural awareness program for the general public is an integral part of enhancing multicultural human rights awareness throughout the country.

From the cultural perception perspective, marriage immigrants also indicated that “they [the Korean public] do not approve me of being one of the members of the Korean society,” “they force unilateral acceptance of Korean culture even in close relationships,” “Koreans are not interested in my country of origin and the culture,” and “there are not many chances to learn about the Korean culture.” Among all of these responses, “being forced to accept Korean culture unilaterally” was viewed as especially difficult. This perception indicates that the acculturation of the Korean culture is rather being forced upon the immigrants instead of Koreans and the Korean society putting effort to understand the immigrants and their culture. This suggests that Koreans are still very conservative about their native culture and that they are still keeping a unilateral perspective toward it. Continued effort for improving migrants’ human rights perceptions should be placed on these issues that are being experienced by immigrants early on in order to alleviate the difficulties and create a more integrative society.