Japanese education system. Although the revised FLE contained a number of
differences from the original version, two points merit attention.
First, the new statute added a new target to the list of objectives of education.
This additional target of education involves “cultivating an attitude that esteems
tradition and culture, a love of country and the hometowns throughout it, [and] at
the same time, respects other countries and contributes to international society’s
peace and development.”^62 Though conservatives carefully avoided the term
“patriotism,” many liberals fear that the government could use the educational
system to promote patriotism at the expense of individual freedoms.
Second, the new statutes revised sections concerning the administration of
education. Prior to the amendment, Article 10 of the FLE provided that
“education shall not be subject to improper control, but shall be directly respon-
sible to the whole population.”^63 The revision states that “education should be
performed without improper control, and on the basis of what the law and other
laws stipulate.” Furthermore, the national government is responsible for determin-
ing and enforcing education-related measures throughout the country, and local
governments are responsible for “planning and enforcing measures that correspond
to the real situation in the area.”
64
This revision aims to increase governmental
political control over reluctant teachers.
In 2007 , the Supreme Court held that an elementary school principal did not
violate a teacher’s freedom of thought by reprimanding the teacher for refusing to
play the national anthem on the piano during a school entrance ceremony.
65
In May 2011 , the court held that a high-school principal’s act of ordering a teacher
to stand and sing the national anthem in circumstances where the teacher refused
to sing did not violate the teacher’s freedom of thought.^66
The revision of the FLE should be viewed together with the movement towards
constitutional revision since both have been the principal goals of Japanese conser-
vative politicians. They have now successfully achieved one of their goals.
With respect to the other one, if conservatives fail to change the interpretation of
Article 9 via the CLB through political pressure, they will have to resort to pursuing
a new path to constitutional revision.
Nevertheless, this is not a good time either to revise Article 9 or to change the
existing interpretation as Japan has yet to earn the trust of her neighboring coun-
tries. Japan has also failed to deal with the question of war responsibility or to
(^62) See Revised FLE, Art. 2 , Sec. 5 , translated in Isaac Young, “Shut up and sing: the rights of
Japanese teachers in an era of conservative educational reform” ( 2009 ) 42 Cornell Inter-
national Law Journal 157 at 168.
(^63) Translated in Edward R. Beauchamp and James M. Vardaman Jr. (eds.),Japanese Educa-
tion since 1945 : A Documentary Study(Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1994 ), p. 109.
(^64) See Revised FLE, Art. 16 , translated in Young, “Shut up and sing,” pp. 168 – 9.
(^6561) Minshu 291 (Sup. Ct., 3 rd P.B., February 27 , 2007 ).
(^6665) Minshu 1780 (Sup. Ct., 2 nd P.B., May 30 , 2011 ).