This report was writen by Robert William Aspinall

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Robert William Aspinall

                       Visiting Lecturer, Department of English
                  Faculty of Language and Culture, Nagoya University


Field of Specialty

     Japanese Education System and Politics 


Contact Details

     Snail-mail: 464-01  Faculty of Language and Culture, Nagoya University,
                         Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan 
     Voice-mail: 052-789-5703 (Office) 
     FAX: 052-789-4873 (Administration Office) 
     E-mail: aspinall@lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp 
     Office: #106, School of Infomatics and Sciences 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------(01)
                                 Robert Aspinall

     The Tokorozawa High School Entrance Ceremony Incident

Introduction
   For a short time in April 1998 events at one high school in Saitama 
prefecture caught the attention of Japan's national media. The student 
council at that school had decided to boycott the official entrance ceremony 
organised by the school principal, and organise a ceremony of their own. 
Why would such an apparently minor incident attract such a lot of attention? 
The purpose of this article is to explore the reasons why, not only the media, 
but also commentators on the Left and the Right of Japanese politics(*1) 
felt that events at Tokorozawa High Schools were so worthy of comment.
   Within any given education system there is no doubt that from time to time 
events at one particular school can assume a very symbolic purpose that can 
transcend purely local issues. The various pressure groups and political 
parties that are involved in a discourse about education at the national 
level can sometimes pick on the example of one individual school to illustrate 
the arguments they are trying to make. For the media, it is easier to tell 
a story about one school, with clearly identifiable teachers, parents and 
children (some of whom can be portrayed as heroes, victims or villains), 
than it is to discuss the education system as a whole. For example, it is 
difficult now for anyone to discuss the history of the education system 
in England in the 1970s without referring to the case of William Tyndale 
School. This London elementary school became the focus of a fierce row 
about the issue of 'progressive' teaching methods versus 'traditional' 
teaching methods.(*2) The teachers and pupils of this school became pawns 
in a national struggle over the values and purpose of the English education 
system as a whole. 
   It is too early to say whether Tokorozawa High School will become as 
famous (or infamous) a case in Japan as William Tyndale School became 
in England. However, for a large Part of 1998 a significant amount of 
discourse on education in Japan made reference to it. The story of the 
entrance ceremony incident was used by both Left and Right for their own 
purposes. Before looking at these broader issues surrounding events at 
this school, however, it is first necessary to review the specific events 
themselves. Therefore the first section of this article will deal with 
the actual events at the school. Later sections will deal with the issues 
of the national flag and national anthem, and the debate about the meaning 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(02)
of controversial terms like 'freedom', 'independence', 'rights', and 
'democratic education'. Finally the changing nature of conflict within 
the education system will be discussed.

Events at Tokorozawa High School 1997-98
   Tokorozawa High School is one of the better academic high schools in 
Saitama prefecture. It has a long history and a tradition of student 
activism and independence. Unlike the majority of high schools in Japan, 
Tokorozawa students do not wear uniforms and have quite relaxed regulations 
about hairstyle. On April lst 1997 a new principal arrived there. His name 
was Uchida Tatstuo, and he had the reputation of being one of the 
prefecture's top principals. Sources inside the prefectural board of 
education were reported as saying that his mission was to 'normalise' 
Tokorozawa High School.(*3) This begs the question of why the school, 
in the eyes of the Board of Education, needed 'normalising'. Subsequent 
events were to show that the main area of concern for the Board of Education 
was Tokorozawa's refusal to fly the national flag or sing the national anthem 
at school ceremonies. Since 1989 every Board of Education in Japan 
had been instructed by Mombusho to enforce The flying of the hinomaru and 
the singing of the kimigayo at school entrance and graduation ceremonies. 
By l998 Mombusho had achieved (at least on paper) a very high level of 
compliance to these instructions. Tokorozawa High School's continued, 
open refusal to follow suit was considered a challenge to the authority 
of Mombusho, to Saitama Board of Education and to the whole system of 
'guidance' and regulation by which schools in Japan are governed. 
   Principal Uchida decided to stamp his authority onto his new school 
from the moment he arrived there. His new tenure began on April 1st, 1997, 
and one of his first jobs was the supervision of the school entrance ceremony. 
At the teachers' meeting held on April 8th to discuss plans for this ceremony, 
Uchida announced that this year's ceremony would include singing the national 
anthem and flying the national flag. Representatives of the two teachers' 
unions objected saying that the plans for the ceremony had already been made 
before Uchida's arrival and that they should not be changed now. The new 
principal stuck to his guns however and there was a stalemate between the two 
sides. A further meeting was held the following day, the day of the ceremony 
itself, but there was no sign of an agreement being reached. According to 
accounts of the meeting from those who were there, Uchida abruptly walked out 
of the meeting taking a cassette tape of the national anthem, a tape-recorder, 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(03)
and the flag with him.(*4) He proceeded to the Sports Hall, the site of the 
ceremony, where parents and students had already been kept waiting for 
30 minutes beyond the scheduled time for the opening of the ceremony. 
What followed was pure farce. The principal's first words to the assembled 
parents and children were lost because the power to the Public Address 
system had been cut, and then when he tried to play the cassette of the 
Kimigayo, he found that someone had taken the tape. General noise and 
confusion reigned. Even before Uchida had finished the opening address, 
homeroom teachers started to take new students to their classrooms. 
Soon the only people left in the sports hall were Uchida, the vice-principal 
(Mr Endoh) and the head of the school office (Mr Yarmazaki) - in other words 
the school' s senior management team. Undeterred, they continued the 
ceremony alone. 
   Once the farce was over a joint committee of teachers and students 
demanded that the principal account for his 'reckless behaviour', Uchida 
replied that it was his job to manage the school in accordance with the 
course of study guidelines from Mombusho. The students put forward the 
argument that their opinions should be considered and that teachers and 
students should consult together on equal terms. Uchida replied to this 
by saying that students and teachers were certainly not equal: the former 
must be guided by the latter. At this point it seems that the student council 
decided that they were not going to get very far with Uchida through 
negotiation. Instead, they decided that future disagreements over the 
organisation of ceremonies would better be resolved by the students 
organising their own, alternative ceremonies, The first test of this new 
approach would come in March the following year with the school graduation 
ceremony. The student council started making plans in November, announcing 
that it would replace the usual graduation ceremony with a student-organised 
'graduation memorial ceremony'. The teachers' meeting and the PTA both 
approved this plan. Faced with this ultimatum Uchida announced that he had 
no objection to a studernt-oganised ceremony per se, but that all the students 
must also attend the official ceremony which would contain the flag and the 
anthem. When the day of the two graduation ceremonies came attendance for 
the 'official' ceremony was poor while the unofficial ceremony was performed 
in front of a packed audience. At the end of his first year in the job Uchida 
had to face the fact that he had not yet stamped his authority on the school. 
In consultation with the Board of Education he began working on a strategy 
that would bring success in the coming year. 
   In March 1998 Uchida and the Board of Education decided that the time had 
come to use threats to bring the recalcitrant students and teachers of 
Tokorozawa High School into line. First of all the teachers were informed 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(04)
that if they did not attend the next official ceremony (the entrance ceremony) 
their action would be regarded as an infringement of official orders, and 
they would be open to censure or punishment (this could take the form of 
a written censure or the withdrawal of pay). Then, on March 31st, a letter 
was sent by the Board of Education to the parents of all of the children 
who were due to enter the school the following month. The letter informed 
them that if they wanted to be sure of their child's entrance to the school 
they should make sure that they attend the official entrance ceremony. 
This letter referred to their children as 'candidates for entrance' thus 
implying that their acceptance by the school was not a foregone conclusion. 
It was very unusual for a phrase like this to be used at such a late stage 
in the entrance procedure. At the end of March, with only a few days to go 
before the start of the school year parents are normally certain about 
which school their children will attend. It seems that the Board of 
Education's choice of words here was unprecedented. On April 3rd, Uchida sent 
out a letter of his own to the parents of new students which repeated the 
threat to exclude them if they did not attend the official ceremony.
   Meanwhile relations between Uchida and the teachers deteriorated further. 
On March 28th, at a meeting for new students and their parents, one teacher, 
Takenaga Koichi, told the parents that it was the opinion of Tokorozawa High 
School teachers that only the unofficial ceremony should take place.  
For his pains Takenaga received a written warning from the Board of Education. 
He was not supposed to undermine the authority of the principal in public. 
This punishment caused outrage among the other teachers and on April 2nd 
a letter was delivered to the Board of Education demanding the recall of 
Uchida i.e. that he be sacked as principal of Tokorozawa High School. 
The PTA supported this demand, and on the following day presented a petition 
of their own calling for Uchida's transfer. It was at this point that outside 
forces began to get involved in the dispute. Nichibenren, the Japanese 
Lawyers Association, sent messages of encouragement to the student council 
and the PTA. The national media also started to notice that this had 
the making of a national new story. 
   April 7th 1998 was the day of the two entrance ceremonies. The official 
ceremony was held first, to be followed shortly after by the unofficial 
'celebrate entering school ceremony'. The media were present in force. 
Over 100 members of the press and TV companies were gathered outside 
the school. Also outside the school were a collection of right wing sound 
trucks which projected, at high volume, slogans like 'Close down Tokorozawa 
High School, the school that is opposed to the national flag and the national 
anthem!'  In spite of threats to exclude them, about 40% of new students 
failed to attend the official ceremony, going only to the unofficial one. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(05)
The other students attended both ceremonies. Therefore, as in the previous 
year, the unofficial ceremony had turned out to be more popular than the 
official one. The threats of Uchida and the Board of Education had not had 
the desired effect. Furthermore, all of the new students were able to enter 
the school. The threat to exclude those who failed to attend the official 
ceremony had proved to be a hollow one.

The Issue of the Flag and the Anthem
   As far as their content is concerned, the only significant difference 
between the official and unofficial ceremonies held at Tokorozawa High School 
was that in the former the national symbols of the flag and the anthem 
were used and in the latter they were not. Why is the use of these symbols 
a cause of such controversy in Japan?  It is to this issue that we must now 
turn.
  In order to understand this issue fully it is necessary to analyse the 
historical background to the controversy. Legally speaking Japan does not 
have a national flag or anthem. However the universal use of the Hinomaru 
flag and the Kimigayo anthem at the places and events where countries 
normally display their national symbols gives them a de facto official status. 
Controversy surrounds both symbols because of their association with wartime 
and prewar Japanese militarism and imperialism. Unlike its Axis allies, 
Germany and Italy, Japan did not change or modify its national symbols 
after the war. Critics on the left interpreted this as a failure to signal 
a clear break with the past. Actually, in October 1945 SCAP, as part of 
its program against militarism, had sent out orders forbidding the official 
raising of the Hinomaru, only to reverse the decision in 1949. hoping, 
rather optimistically, that from then on the unmodified flag would become 
a 'symbol of peace.'(*5) This failed to happen, and both the flag and 
the anthem have been controversial ever since. 
   It was inevitable that the flag and the anthem would become a contentious 
issue between Left and Right within the Japanese education system. 
Ever since the Minister of Education, Amano Teiyu, announced, in 1950, 
that raising the flag and singing the anthem would be 'desirable' 
(nozomashii), the ministry and conservative politicians have consistently 
tried to extend recognition of these national symbols into schools. Their 
aim has been to instil patriotism into children. The Japan Teachers' Union, 
Nikkyoso, for its part, has been opposed to the re-introduction of the flag 
and the anthem into school life for two main reasons. Firstly, they share 
the opinion, outlined above, that the flag and the anthem are reminiscent 
of war and imperialism, and, secondly they are opposed, in principle, to the 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(06)
authorities giving orders to schools about how to conduct their affairs, 
in this case school ceremonies.(*6) The second objection came to the fore 
in the mid-1980s when Mombusho stepped up its efforts to increase recognition 
of the flag and anthem.
   The debate on education in the 1980s was dominated by Prime Minister 
Nakasone's Ad Hoc Council on Education, or Rinkyoshin. One of its proposals 
concerned the compulsory flying of the flag and singing of the anthem 
at school functions. The need for increased patriotism was justified 
by Japan's increasing internationalisation. It was argued that Japanese 
people could not properly learn to respect foreign cultures until they had 
learned to respect their own. (*7) Nikkyoso and other opponents saw this 
as merely the latest justification for a long established effort by 
conservative forces to turn the clock back to prewar style jingoism.
   The Ministry of Education responded to Rinkyoshin's call for greater 
recognition of the flag and anthem by including in its 1989 revision of 
the course of study guidelines (gakusyu shido yoryo) a change in the wording 
concerning regulations about the flag and the anthem. From now on flying 
the flag and singing the anthem at school ceremonies was no longer to be 
merely desirable (nozomashii), it was to be something that 'must be done' 
(suru mono to suru). (*8) Prior to 1989 over half of elementary and senior 
high schools had failed to comply with ministry wishes. The figure for junior 
high schools was a little over 60%.(*9) The ministry was now aiming for 
100% compliance and was prepared to discipline principals who resisted. 
In every prefecture boards of education were instructed to compile lists 
of which schools did and which schools did not fly the flag and sing the 
anthem. In 1991 125 school principals (90% of whom were in Kochi prefecture) 
were disciplined, the first to be so punished under the new rules.(*10) 
In schools with strong union representation and a militant leadership the 
school principal now found him or herself in a difficult position. They 
would be punished by their superiors if they did not comply with the 
regulations, but they would meet with resistance and disruption if they did. 
In many cases the principal and vice-principal tried to find ways around 
this dilemma by obeying the letter of the law while appeasing opponents 
by enacting the regulations in meaningless or even farcical ways. There are 
reports of the vice-principal singing the anthem alone while playing the tune 
on a small cassette player, (*11)  and of principals running the flag up 
a flag pole, leaving it there for a few seconds, and then pulling it down. 
(*12) Reports of flags being flown in inappropriate places, for example 
on the tops of buildings, in the corners of playing fields or amongst copses 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(07)
of trees, are even more numerous.(*13) On one occasion high school students 
chose to fly koinobori carp streamers from the flag-pole in place of the 
Hinomaru.(*14)  
   In spite of continued resistance and disruption, there is evidence that, 
by the mid-1990s, Mombusho was beginning to consider the dispute to be over. 
In terms of the official statistics of compliance there is no doubt that 
it has achieved its aims. (*15) Thus, when Nikkyoso made its 1995 decision 
to omit any reference to the flag and the anthem in its campaign policy 
document, it looked like it was bringing an end to a lost battle. However, 
the minority left-wing teachers' union, Zenkyo has accused Nikkyoso of 
surrendering to the enemy by giving up this fight. The staff of Tokorozawa 
High School consists of members of both of these unions as well as teachers 
who are not members of any union. Whatever their personal feelings on the 
subject were, they found themselves in April 1998 plunged right back into 
conflict over the flag and anthem.

Arguments over words: Tokorozawa students and 
               the meaning of Freedom,Democracy and Right 
               in the contemporary Japanese education system
   The way in which the two sides at Tokorozawa conducted their battle of 
words over the flag and the anthem was highly significant. They helped focus 
attention onto one of the key ideological areas of dispute between Left and 
Right in the contemporary Japanese education system. This was the dispute 
over the meaning and practical implications of the democratic terms and 
conditions that had been written into the defining documents of the postwar 
Japanese education system by the American occupiers and their center-left 
Japanese allies(**). Since the Occupation there has been continued 
disagreement over the meaning of 'freedom' and 'democracy' as well as related 
terms like 'democratic education' (the achievement of which was one of 
the main goals of the American Occupiers). Now, in the 1990s, the concept 
of 'children's rights' has been added to this controversial list. Japan's 
ratification of the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child provoked a national 
debate about the nature of children's rights in Japan. We will consider 
these terms one by one before discussing the overall significance of 
this controversy about meaning. 
   What do Japanese people mean when they talk about 'freedom' in relation 
to the education of children?  The most commonly used Japanese word for 
'freedom' is jiyu and in the debate surrounding Tokorozawa High School 
this word was usually used in the phrase jiyu na Kofu or 'School Ethos of 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(08)
Freedom'. Supporters of the students used this Phrase in a positive way, 
and praised the students for standing up for freedom. Critics, on the other 
hand, claimed that the phrase was a sham that disguised the manipulation of 
the students by Communists. Another commonly used phrase in the debate was 
jishu-jiritsu, which means independence in the sense of standing on one's own 
two feet and making decisions for oneself. Tokorozawa students were also 
praised on the letter pages of the Asahi Shimbun for their shutaisei. 
This is another word for independence, and one that has been used often 
in the debate on education in Japan. It is something that the Left believes 
should be encouraged in schools and universities. Thus, when the Tokorozawa 
students claimed that they were standing up for the freedom and independence 
of school students, they immediately immersed themselves into a much broader 
discourse on the aims and values of the education system. In 1991 the student 
council had drawn up a 'Bill of Rights' to codify exactly what they were 
striving to achieve. (This Bill of Rights is reproduced in full as an appendix 
to this article.) The students' concept of freedom included freedom of 
expression, freedom of conscience and the freedom to organise their own school 
activities: in other words, the freedom to act as an individual and to 
organise things independently of adult authority. As it stands, the Bill of 
Rights is hardly a revolutionary document. It does not include anything about 
student participation in the design of the school curriculum for example. Up 
until the 1998 incident the only outward way in which Tokorozawa High School 
was different from other Japanese high schools was in its lack of school 
uniform (including its lack of strict regulations about hairstyles). 
Nevertheless, it only took a few gestures for Tokorozawa High School to get 
itself involved in a larger ideological struggle between Left and Right.  
   Documents published by the two Saitama high school teacher unions that 
made reference to Tokorozawa's entrance ceremony included favorable references 
to the students' jishu-jiritsu, The teachers in the school consistently 
supported the students in their interpretation of the concepts of freedom and 
independence. Also, letter writers to the Asahi Shimbun and to other liberal 
or leftwing publications (for example the weekly magazine Shukan Kinyo) 
praised the students for standing up for these ideals. One letter made 
the point that by refusing to bow before the old imperialist symbols of 
the hinomaru and kimigayo, the students were striking a blow for student 
independence and autonomy. They were refusing to accept their place within 
the school and within society as mere 'subjects' (shinmin) of the emperor, 
but instead were asserting their own rights as citizens of a democracy. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(09)
In other words the Left and the centre-left in Japan supported the Tokorozawa 
students' interpretation of 'freedom' and 'independence'. The Right, however, 
had a different view of the matter.
   On July 8th, l998 the Yomiuri Shimbun, a newspaper that is sometimes both 
mouthpiece and thinktank for the centre-right in Japan, ran an editorial about 
education reform. This editorial specifically singled out the Tokorozawa 
students and the teachers who supported them, for criticism. It accused them 
of 'misunderstanding' the concept of freedom. If teachers want to have more 
freedom, the editorial argued ,then they must "act with a strong sense of 
self-discipline and high moral standards. Their quest for freedom must be 
coupled with a sense of self-discipline." The Yomiuri is in favour of 
a certain amount of extra 'freedom' in the education system in the form 
of dereguration and decentralisation. In common with most organised business 
opinion in Japan, the Yomiuri recognises that the very rigid and centralised 
education system that helped Japan to 'catch up' with the West in economic 
development after the War is now in need of major overhaul. The business world 
is keen to see more flexibility and more choice in education, as well as the 
introduction of more business-style management into educational administration.
(*16) The problem for the Right is how to achieve these ends without 
contributing to various, contemporary problems that are perceived to be 
the product of a break down of the traditional discipline and authority 
of Japanese schools.(*17) This explains the heavy stress the Yomiuri 
editorial placed on 'self-discipline' and 'moral standards'. The Right hopes 
that by emphasising these elements the education system can be made more 
flexible and 'freer' without the danger of an explosion of anarchy in the 
classroom. Furthermore, from the perspective of the Right, one of the key 
elements in any 'moral education' must always be 'patriotic education'. 
As was mentioned earlier this patriotic education necessarily involves 
respect for the national flag and the national anthem. This respect must be 
taught to all Japanese children. The Right does not believe that any 
'flexibility' in the education system should include the option of doing 
without the flag and the anthem. By doing what they did in April 1998, 
therefore, the students of Tokorozawa High School posed a double threat 
to the Right's vision of the direction of education reform. By refusing 
to respect the flag and the anthem they posed a threat to 
'patriotic education', and by disobeying the instructions of the principal 
they posed a threat to school discipline. For the Right, this is clearly 
a case of the abuse of 'freedom'.
   During the Occupation the concept of 'democratic education' gained favour 
in Japan. Today it is unthinkable or a mainstream politician or education 
expert to speak out against the idea of democracy in education. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(10)
Instead, and predictably, disagreement between Left and Right has been about 
the meaning of these terms. Basically, both sides defined the terms to suit 
their own political purpose. When the Occupation was over, the Right was 
dominant in national politics, and with the unification of the Liberal and 
the Democratic parties to become the Liberal Democratic Party in 1955, 
they were able to stamp their authority on a period of  unbroken rule that 
continued until 1989 (when the LDP lost its majority in the Upper House for 
the first time) It therefore suited the Right to have a fairly centralised 
definition of what democracy meant. In the case of the education system, 
they argued that the Minister of Education had legitimate authority over 
the national education system. He (and in LDP administrations it always was 
a he) was the representative of the democratically elected government, 
a government that served the interests of the whole nation, not just a part. 
It was his duty to consult with the various interest groups and regional 
groups that were involved with education, but after consultation his decision 
must be final. In this way a national education system that treated all 
Japanese children the same could be preserved.
   The Left had a different view about democracy and education. Until it split 
into two in 1989, the most powerful group on the Left in the area of education 
was always the Japan Teachers' Union, Nikkyoso. At its height, this union 
represented  the vast majority of school teachers in Japan. However, in 
Japanese law it was not recognised as their national spokesperson. 
For example, because teachers' wages were set at the national level the union 
could not take part in meaningful wage negotiations. At the prefectural 
level however the teachers union was recognised as the legal representative 
of its members. It therefore suited the union to push for more 
decentralisation of the education system. If more power were handed over from 
Tokyo to the prefectures then the influence of the union would be increased. 
The union also did not like the way in which prefectural superintendents of 
education were always appointed rather than elected. Furthermore their 
appointment had to be approved by the Ministry of Education. Nikkyoso pressed 
for the introduction of elections to decide the superintendent of education 
and the Board of Education. Briefly, during the American occupation these 
posts had been elected. However, the Americans soon reversed their decision 
when they found that election campaigns for Boards of Education turned out to 
be highly politicized. Nikkyoso was in favour of a return to this kind of 
election for both ideological reasons and for practical reasons of increasing 
its own influence and reducing the power of Mombusho. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(11)
   Disputes between the right and left over the meaning of 'democracy' and  
'freedom' have gone on for the entire postwar period. More recently a new 
dispute has come about concerned with the notion of 'rights' and specifically 
'the rights of the child'. Japan ratified the United Nations Convention on 
the Rights of the Child in 1995. All sides in Japan said they supported this 
convention. However, as with the argument over the meaning of 'freedom' and 
'democracy', dispute and ideological disagreement revolved around the meaning 
and implications of the words contained in the convention. This disagreement 
was heightened by the fact that, unlike the constitution and the Fundamental 
Law of Education, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was not written up 
in a Japanese language version that everyone could agree on. Japanese is not 
one of the official languages of the UN and therefore it was up to each 
concerned Japanese group to come up with their own translation. It should not 
be surprising that the translations that each side came up with were one that 
suited their own ideological and political purposes. Thus Mombusho offered 
a translation and an interpretation of that translation that enabled them to 
submit a report to the UN saying that Japan was complying with all of the main 
articles of the convention. Nichibenren, the lawyers' organization, arrived at 
a translation and an interpretation that was far less flattering to 
the Japanese education system. The teachers unions agreed with the lawyers' 
version of the convention.
    For both the Right and the Left the acceptance of the language of 'rights' 
marked a key change of direction in the ideological discourse on education. 
Previously, the Right had been mainly concerned with fostering patriotism and 
conservative social and moral values within the nation's young, while the Left 
had been concerned with promoting pacifist and anti-imperialist education. 
Both sides had agreed that equality was important, i.e. that educational 
provision should be more or less the same across the whole nation and for all 
social groups. By shifting the debate into the area of human rights, however, 
both sides have introduced an inevitable individualism into the debate. 
Both sides would argue, of course, that they have always been interested in 
the individual, or, more specifically, in education that aims at developing 
each person's individual personality. However, up until very recently, this 
concern with the individual had always been expressed in terms of the 
individual as part of a group. From his or her earliest days each Japanese 
child has been trained in how to be the member of a group. Teachers regard it 
as one of their main tasks to foster this ability to co-operate with other 
people, and scholars of comparative education have remarked that this is 
one of the key areas where Japanese schools (especially elementary schools) 
differ from those in the West.(*18)  Both the Japanese Left and Right 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(12)
agreed with this function of the education system. (Where they differed was 
on the content of the curriculum.) However, by shifting the focus of attention 
onto individual human rights both sides will now have to face up to the 
possibility of the weakening of group-centred education. With more choice 
given to children and their parents about what subject to study and what 
school to go to, the tendency of Japanese students to stay with the same group 
of classmates (their homeroom) for most of their time in one school will be 
diminished. More choice and variety will inevitably undermine the egalitarian 
consensus that so characterized the postwar education system. Individualism 
will begin to assert itself in various ways. In the case of the Tokorozawa 
incident the most notable feature that emphasised this new development was 
the students' reliance on lawyers to protect themselves when they were 
threatened with exclusion by the principal and the Board of Education. 
This is one of the features that marks the Tokorozawa dispute out as a new 
kind of conflict within the education system. It is to this aspect that we 
now turn.

New Patterns of Conflict Within the Education System
    Some aspects of the Tokorozawa conflict look familiar to students of 
conflict within the Japanese education system. The issue of the flag and 
the anthem is not a new issue. The tendency for right wing sound trucks to be 
attracted to the site of conflict is depressingly familiar. Furthermore, this 
is not the first time that a principal has overruled the wishes of a majority 
of his staff tried to impose his decision on them. What are the features of 
the Totorozawa conflict, therefore, that mark it out as being worthy of 
special attention? What are the features that may make it the harbinger of 
a new type of conflict in Japan's school system? 
   The main difference between the Tokorozawa conflict and previous types of 
conflict at Japanese schools is the fact that, at Tokorozawa, the challenge 
to the Right was led by school students whose main slogans involved the 
language of freedom and rights. In previous conflicts, the opposition to 
right-wing management had been led and organised by the teachers' unions, 
and the slogans they had used had invoked leftwing or trade unionist ideals. 
At its height, Nikkyoso had seen itself, with some justification, as the 
central pillar of the Left in Japan, not just in the education system, but 
in the country at large. It was one of the main supporters of the Japan 
Socialist Party (JSP), which for most of the postwar period provided the main 
political opposition to the dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), between 
1955 and 1993 the perpetual party of government. Also, Nikkyoso was usually 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(13)
the most powerful union within Sohyo, the giant federation of public sector 
unions, most of which had a left or centre-left slant. 
   By 1998, however, this political situation had changed beyond recognition. 
Between 1992 and 1998 the JSP was reduced from being the main opposition party 
in the Diet to a mere rump. In 1989 the public sector union federation, Sohyo, 
merged with the private sector federation, Domei to form Rengo, an 
organisation that pursued a conciliatory line toward management and 
government. Lastly, also in 1989, Nikkyoso split into two, following internal 
wrangling about affiliation with Rengo. It seemed that in a few short years 
the entire edifice of the Japanese Left had crumbled away. Only the Japan 
Communist Party (JCP) emerged from this period stronger than before, (In part 
it capitalised on the misfortunes of the other organisations of the Left.)
    Before 1989, most of the conflict between management and teachers that 
occurred in schools was part of a wider picture of conflict between Nikkyoso 
and the government. This does not mean that the pattern of conflict, nor its 
intensity, was the same in every school in Japan - far from it. American 
anthropologist, Thomas Rohlen has shown how the conflict varied from 
prefecture to prefecture and from individual school to individual school 
depending on local circumstances.(*19)  However, he also showed how some 
of the most bitter conflict within schools was brought about by developments 
at the national level. When Nikkyoso split into two, the more moderate of the 
resulting parts (the one that retained the name Nikkyoso) opted for a more 
conciliatory policy toward Mombusho and the government. The other part, which 
adopted the name Zenkyo, decided to continue the struggle, but because its 
membership comprised only about 10% of Japan's school teachers, its influence 
was clearly less than that of the old, united union, which in its heyday had 
had a membership rate of over 90%. 
   Many commentators believed that the above developments would herald the end 
of conflict within the Japanese education system. The interesting thing about 
events at Tokorozawa High School in April 1998 is that they illustrate 
a pattern of conflict different from that which bad gone before. It is true 
that the origin of the conflict was the national campaign to enforce the 
flying of the national flag and the singing of the national anthem. However, 
in their act of defiance against the principal and the Board of Education, 
the students of Tokorozawa High School did not see themselves in taking part 
in any national campaign. Instead they regarded themselves as standing up for 
their own rights as individuals and members of an individual school. They 
received messages of support from other schools, and help and advice from 
outside (as well as a huge amount of media attention), but their campaign 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(14)
to run their own school ceremonies was primarily a localised affair. If any of 
the students had been punished for their actions they would have defended 
themselves as individuals with rights rather than members of a group. It is 
this stress on human rights and individualism that marks the Tokorozawa 
dispute out as a new type of conflict within the Japanese education system.

Conclusion: The Significance of the Tokorozawa Incident
   When the leaders of Tokorozawa High School student council decided to 
organise their own entrance ceremony for April 9th, 1998 they probably had no 
idea of the size of the controversy that would ensue. What they could not 
possibly have known was how well their actions, and the actions of the 
principal, would suit the purposes of both Left and Right in Japan as they 
engaged in their neverending ideological war of words. The fact was that 
the conflict between students and principal at Tokorozawa High School took 
place on the fault line that runs right through the middle of the Japanese 
education system. On one side stood those in favour of more freedom, autonomy 
and independence for students and teachers. On the other stood those in favour 
of responsibility, moral education and patriotism. Both sides believed that 
their agenda would cure the ills afflicting schools in contemporary Japan. 
Furthermore, each side blamed the other for (willingly or unwillingly) 
promoting policies that were detrimental to children and to society as 
a whole. Up until the late 1980s, conflict between Left and Right was centred 
around the long-running conflict between government and teachers' unions. 
Changes within the unions and the national political parties in the 1990s 
have made this picture much more complex than it used to be. However, the 
Tokorozawa High School incident can be viewed as a reminder that the basic 
ideological differences between Left and Right have not gone away. It is the 
way in which these differences are manifested in actual conflict that has 
changed. 




                                  Appendix

      Tokorozawa High School Student Council Bill of Rights

Preamble
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(15)
People have the right to live freely. The right to freely organise student 
activities is a universal request of Tokorozawa High School students. Various 
rights are necessary for this purpose. In the past the repeated efforts of 
large numbers of Tokorozawa High School students has achieved this aim. 
Furthermore, during the past various rights were protected. Many of  these 
rights were achieved within the context of a relationship of trust between 
students and staff. To preserve the freedom won it is necessary to achieve 
self-government for ourselves. The break down of this self-government will 
bring about a loss of rights. In the case of threat that this self-government 
will be destroyed, this must be prevented at all costs.

Here we enact the "Student Council Bill of Rights" and recognise the value and 
meaning of the right to freedom.

1. A school is made up of students and staff. The individuality of all of 
   these people is recognised  and the claims of these people should be 
   respected.
2. In order to improve school life the freedom of self-governed, democratic 
   school activity is guaranteed. 
3. Freedom of expression, including clothes and hair styles, is guaranteed.
4. Freedom of conscience is guaranteed.

These freedoms are valid so long as they do not violate another person's 
rights. No one should forget that these freedoms are always accompanied by 
responsibilities. Because the ideal of freedom does not involve damage to 
the rights of others, it follows that, whatever the situation, rights must 
always be guaranteed..

22nd February, 1990 Students' General Meeting



(**) The postwar constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education (both 1947)
(*1) Neither the 'left' nor the 'Right' in Japan is a monolithic entity of 
     course. However, for the purposes of this article I will often refer to 
     the opinions or the motives of one or the other as if it were a unified 
     whole. This is justified by the fact that the controversies discussed 
     here are mostly those that divided people clearly into members of one 
     camp or the other.
(*2) See Gratton and Jackson (1976)
(*3) Yamazaki (1998) p.194. The Japanese word used was seijoka.
(*4) Yamazaki (1998) p.195.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------(16)
(*5) Cripps (1996), p.81
(*6) Interview with Yoneura Tadashi, secretary of Saikokyo (Saitama High 
     School Teachers' Union), 22 March 1996
(*7) gakko un'eikenkyu (Journal of Education Management Research) March 1995 
     Special edition on the Hinomaru and Kimigayo.
(*8) Cripps (1996), p.83
(*9) Cripps (1996), p.84
(*10) Asahi Shimbun 25 July 1991 They were reprimanded or warned
(*11) Cripps (1996), p.86
(*12) Interview with union members at Urawa Commercial High School, Saitama, 
      20th September 1995
(*13) Cripps (1996), p.90 and the author's own experience at high schools 
      in Saitama 1989-1992
(*14) 1990 graduation ceremony, Kumagaya High School Saitama. Interestingly, 
      this is another Saitama high school with a long history and a good 
      academic reputation.
(*15) On 17th October 1998 the Yomiuri Shimbun reported that a Mombusho 
      survey had found that the national flag was flown at 98% of ceremonies 
      held in primary, junior high and senior high schools in March and April 
      of that year. The figure for singing the anthem was 80%.
(*16) See Keidanren (1996) fir a summary of the business world's proposals 
      for education reform.
(*17) These problems include bullying and school violence, as well as 
      an increase in truancy. There is also a new category of problem 
      referred to as gakkyu hokai or 'classroom breakdown' i.e. the breakdown 
      of the teacher's authority within the classroom.
(*18) See White (1987) for a standard work on this subject
(*19) Rohlen (1984)