The court rules that saying "You're pretty, teacher" is not an infringement of teacher's rights.
An elementary school student who was identified as a violator of teacher's rights and faced disciplinary action for saying, “You're pretty, teacher. Would you like to go out with me?” has been able to clear his name after a legal battle.
The court judged that while the statement might be inappropriate, it is difficult to view it as an act that causes sexual humiliation or disgust.
According to the legal community on the 8th, the Chuncheon District Court Administrative Division 1 (Presiding Judge Kim Byeong-cheol) ruled in favor of the student A, who filed a lawsuit against the head of the Wonju Office of Education to cancel the school service punishment.
Previously, on March 4 last year, after the start-of-term ceremony, A, who was in the 5th grade, made the remark to his homeroom teacher, B, and was disciplined with a 2-hour school service in January of this year for causing sexual discomfort.
A's side, which filed an administrative lawsuit against the punishment, argued that he only said, "You're pretty, teacher," and did not actually say, "Would you like to go out with me?"
They also argued that the expression "You're pretty, teacher" falls within the normal range of expressions of affection from students, and there are no teachers who would categorize statements like "Please marry me" as sexual harassment or infringements on educational activities.
In response, the court acknowledged A's statement, "Would you like to go out with me?" based on written statements from witnessing students, but determined that the remark did not amount to an act causing sexual humiliation or disgust.
It could be deemed inappropriate or surprising to the homeroom teacher, but from the perspective of a typical and average person, it is difficult to classify the statement as one that presupposes a physical relationship between males and females or an act that induces feelings of sexual humiliation or disgust.
Regarding the report from teacher B, who believed that A's sexual remarks to other students should be known to the parents, the court concluded that such circumstances alone do not firmly establish that A's statement had a "sexual meaning."
The court particularly noted the context in which teacher B reported A's remarks as an infringement of teacher's rights.
A's side felt that they, and A, who had been experiencing bullying since the beginning of the semester, had requested help from teacher B but felt that appropriate measures were not taken.
As the language abuse, assault, and sexual violence escalated, A's side reported the bullying to the school in September of last year and filed charges against the assailants for forced molestation, resulting in some students receiving disciplinary action for bullying and others receiving juvenile protection measures from the court.
During this process, A's side also filed charges against teacher B for child abuse in November of last year. The court concluded that the late report of A’s remarks as an infringement of teacher's rights by B was suspicious.
The court also ruled to annul the 6-hour special education requirement imposed due to A's parents cautioning B about the bullying issue.
The court emphasized that the "parental right to educate their child" is an important fundamental right stemming from the constitution, and that parents have the right to inform the homeroom teacher and seek solutions when their child faces difficulties in school life.
Even though A's parents pointed out B's handling of the matter somewhat aggressively, considering that B did not sufficiently inform them of the problem-solving process, the seriousness of the bullying and sexual violence that A experienced, and the not-insignificant duration of the conflict, the court concluded that it cannot be seen as an infringement of teacher's rights.
Image Source: Reference photo for understanding the article / gettyimagesbank
