Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program by David L. McConnell Page B
Authors: David L. McConnell
Ads: Link
participants and local Japanese officials.
As an administrative office, CLAIR is in a very delicate position. It must
negotiate with a whole host of ministries and agencies at the national level,
with local governments throughout the country, and with the thousands of
JET participants themselves. Though CLAIR has little input on major policy decisions, the Japanese staff and the program coordinators have considerable power when it comes to shaping program content.
Participating Countries
Having embarked on an ambitious plan to enhance Japan's valuing of diversity, the next decision government leaders faced was selecting those
who qualified for inclusion. Four countries were invited to join the JET
Program in its inaugural year: the United States, Britain, Australia, and
New Zealand. Canada and Ireland were added in 1988, and France and Germany joined in 1989 (see chapter 3), for a total of eight countries participating in the ALT component of the program. Table 1 shows the breakdown of ALT participants by country for JET's first five years.
The already functioning MEF and BET programs made the choice of the
United States and Britain obvious. In fact, participants were given the option of renewing their contracts and staying on in Japan under the JET
Program.j0 The addition of Australia and New Zealand was engineered primarily by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Now that the English program
was loosened somewhat from the viselike grip of the Ministry of Education, diplomatic considerations could be entertained. Japanese language
study was booming in those countries, and both had been knocking on the
door for admission to the MEF and BET programs for some time. Significantly, their participation would not greatly increase the overall number of
applicants.
Indeed, the numbers indicate a strong American bias. During the first
year of the program, 70 percent of the foreign participants hailed from the
United States; even after two more participating countries were added in
1988, the figure was just over 6o percent. This overrepresentation is due
not only to the larger pool of potential applicants in the United States but
also to the close relationship that Japan has developed with the United
States in the postwar era. One Ministry of Home Affairs official told me
bluntly: "The first thing you should know about the background of the JET
Program is that Japan likes the United States." The origins of the program in U.S.-Japan trade friction also provided some impetus to recruit heavily
in the United States. Finally, since prefectures were allowed to put in a request for certain nationalities, both the Ministry of Home Affairs and the
Ministry of Education expected that local governments would primarily
request Americans in the first year of the program. They did not wish to
disappoint local officials.
The initial list of participating countries also reveals that in Japan internationalization is primarily perceived as linking with Western countries.
No native English speakers from India or Singapore, for instance, were invited. This attitude stems at least in part from the striking differences in
Japan's historical relationship with Western and with Asian countries. Asia
has been colonized by Japan for much of the last 150 years and until recently has been regarded largely with contempt; but the technological, military, and economic superiority of Europe and the United States during
most of the twentieth century has led Japanese to view Westerners with a
mixture of fear and awe.31 To achieve greater international status, the Japanese feel they must concentrate on their relations with Western countries.
SALARY AND WORKING CONDITIONS
Another noteworthy structural feature of the JET Program was the generous package of benefits offered to the foreign participants. Their salaries
were set at 3,600,000 yen per year. This came to about $25,700 in 1987, but with the stronger yen it has averaged about
As an administrative office, CLAIR is in a very delicate position. It must
negotiate with a whole host of ministries and agencies at the national level,
with local governments throughout the country, and with the thousands of
JET participants themselves. Though CLAIR has little input on major policy decisions, the Japanese staff and the program coordinators have considerable power when it comes to shaping program content.
Participating Countries
Having embarked on an ambitious plan to enhance Japan's valuing of diversity, the next decision government leaders faced was selecting those
who qualified for inclusion. Four countries were invited to join the JET
Program in its inaugural year: the United States, Britain, Australia, and
New Zealand. Canada and Ireland were added in 1988, and France and Germany joined in 1989 (see chapter 3), for a total of eight countries participating in the ALT component of the program. Table 1 shows the breakdown of ALT participants by country for JET's first five years.
The already functioning MEF and BET programs made the choice of the
United States and Britain obvious. In fact, participants were given the option of renewing their contracts and staying on in Japan under the JET
Program.j0 The addition of Australia and New Zealand was engineered primarily by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Now that the English program
was loosened somewhat from the viselike grip of the Ministry of Education, diplomatic considerations could be entertained. Japanese language
study was booming in those countries, and both had been knocking on the
door for admission to the MEF and BET programs for some time. Significantly, their participation would not greatly increase the overall number of
applicants.
Indeed, the numbers indicate a strong American bias. During the first
year of the program, 70 percent of the foreign participants hailed from the
United States; even after two more participating countries were added in
1988, the figure was just over 6o percent. This overrepresentation is due
not only to the larger pool of potential applicants in the United States but
also to the close relationship that Japan has developed with the United
States in the postwar era. One Ministry of Home Affairs official told me
bluntly: "The first thing you should know about the background of the JET
Program is that Japan likes the United States." The origins of the program in U.S.-Japan trade friction also provided some impetus to recruit heavily
in the United States. Finally, since prefectures were allowed to put in a request for certain nationalities, both the Ministry of Home Affairs and the
Ministry of Education expected that local governments would primarily
request Americans in the first year of the program. They did not wish to
disappoint local officials.
The initial list of participating countries also reveals that in Japan internationalization is primarily perceived as linking with Western countries.
No native English speakers from India or Singapore, for instance, were invited. This attitude stems at least in part from the striking differences in
Japan's historical relationship with Western and with Asian countries. Asia
has been colonized by Japan for much of the last 150 years and until recently has been regarded largely with contempt; but the technological, military, and economic superiority of Europe and the United States during
most of the twentieth century has led Japanese to view Westerners with a
mixture of fear and awe.31 To achieve greater international status, the Japanese feel they must concentrate on their relations with Western countries.
SALARY AND WORKING CONDITIONS
Another noteworthy structural feature of the JET Program was the generous package of benefits offered to the foreign participants. Their salaries
were set at 3,600,000 yen per year. This came to about $25,700 in 1987, but with the stronger yen it has averaged about
Similar Books
