The DEI Progress in South Korean Higher Education: Analysis and Policy Implications

The globalization of educational services, spurred by the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995 and the General Agreement on Trade in Services, expanded the scope of South Korea's higher education from being predominantly domestic to increasingly international. Post-2000, this shift led to a significant influx of international students into South Korean higher education institutions, marking a reversal from the earlier trend of domestic students studying abroad. This period also saw a steady increase in the number of foreign professors. 

Concurrently, South Korea is grappling with demographic challenges due to low birth rates, prompting discussions on attracting more foreigners. The higher education sector is actively seeking to reinvigorate the recruitment of international students in the post-COVID era, with a growing emphasis on lifelong learning and diverse age groups in higher education. University LGBTQ+ clubs' activities have sometimes clashed with traditional cultures, underscoring the need for inclusive policies that accommodate diverse identities.

The concept of "diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)" in South Korean universities is a response to these evolving dynamics. Historically, the focus was on expanding higher education opportunities through admissions systems that considered disabilities and socio-economic factors. In the 21st century, many universities began establishing human rights centers, disability support centers, and gender equality centers to protect the rights of their members. However, the establishment of dedicated organizations for comprehensive campus improvement centered around DEI values is a recent trend. While DEI-focused research in South Korea is not as advanced as in countries like the U.S., there is a growing awareness of its importance. 

In this particular context, our study aims to analyze the operational status and achievements of dedicated diversity organizations in domestic universities and to draw insights from the experience of established institutions like the State University of New York, which has a long history in this field.

Key findings

While domestic universities have shown a proactive approach in establishing diversity-focused organizations and setting broad DEI objectives, challenges remain in resource allocation, structural integration, and the breadth of constituent representation. Comparatively, SUNY's model offers insights into more integrated and resource-supported approaches to institutionalizing DEI.

1. Context Evaluation: Domestic universities' diversity-focused organizations were established in response to the demands of underrepresented groups and to align with international higher education standards. Unlike the American model, which centers on racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination, the Korean approach initially stemmed from movements led by female professors. Both contexts, however, reflect the universities' initiative to meet the changing needs of diversity and inclusivity.
2. Input Evaluation: The universities' objectives broadly encompass enhancing internal diversity, inclusivity, and human rights protection. Though the goals are somewhat abstract, they are deemed valid, allowing for a wide range of activities. The issue lies in the adequacy of resources allocated to these objectives, suggesting that more substantial investment in terms of budget and manpower is necessary for transformative change.
3. Process Evaluation: The effectiveness of diversity-focused organizations varied, primarily influenced by the nature of advisory bodies and their integration into decision-making structures. While SUNY demonstrates a more integrated approach by incorporating Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) into major decision-making bodies, domestic universities often limit these bodies to advisory roles with limited impact. The composition of these organizations also reveals room for improvement, especially regarding the inclusion of diverse university constituents.
4. Output Evaluation: Universities have undertaken various initiatives to institutionalize DEI, from policy revisions to awareness-raising activities. Notable achievements include Seoul National University’s diversity environment monitoring and policy amendments, Korea University's diversity declarations and educational efforts, and KAIST's inclusivity statements and global perspective initiatives. These efforts underscore the universities' commitment to enhancing DEI, despite challenges in fully realizing these goals.

Strategic Policy Recommendations

1. Defining and Communicating DEI Goals: It's crucial to precisely define DEI activities' objectives as mandatory, not optional, and actively communicate these with university and societal members. As observed in the SUNY ODEI case, the value of DEI extends beyond just women or sexual minorities, encompassing nationality and race as well. This suggests a need for a shift in perspective, recognizing that even activities not directly impacting short-term financial gains or quantitative metrics can contribute to beneficial social changes, enhancing university reputation and sustainability.
2. Recognizing the Importance of University Leadership in ODEI: The sustainability of DEI initiatives heavily relies on strong, consistent leadership. The example of Korea University, where changes in presidency led to the merging of the Diversity Committee with the Human Rights Center, illustrates how internal politics or administrative decisions can weaken the momentum of DEI activities. The typically short tenure of university presidents in Korea complicates the sustainability of DEI-focused leadership, necessitating efforts to embed DEI organizations institutionally and structurally.
3. Enhancing the Status and Authority of ODEI: Efforts are needed to progressively elevate the status and authority of ODEI within universities. This involves establishing "structural mechanisms" that enable effective operation beyond mere recommendations. Cooperation with internal bodies like Human Rights Centers and Institutional Research departments is crucial. The recent trend in some Korean universities of placing Diversity Committees under the Human Rights Center, which limits their independence, calls for a refined adjustment of functions, authority, and scope of work between these entities. 
4. Improving Professional Expertise in ODEI Leadership: Institutional measures to enhance the expertise of ODEI leaders or DEI staff are necessary. Unlike in American universities where Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) and ODEI staff are specifically employed for DEI tasks, Korean universities often appoint existing professors to lead diversity organizations. This practice contrasts with the American approach, where CDOs, often in positions equivalent to vice presidents, hold significant authority and high-level treatment. Korean universities should thus focus on identifying and training more experts to convincingly share the importance and effectiveness of DEI and deepen related research.

Conclusion

As societal changes increasingly embrace diversity values, universities must deeply contemplate ways to inclusively represent underrepresented groups without compromising fairness. Recognizing diversity policy as a key driver for educational impact and university innovation, DEI should be strategically and actively integrated into all aspects of university life – admissions, recruitment, crisis management, curriculum, and campus environment. DEI should become the "DNA" permeating every facet of the university community, as one interviewee put it, “It’s the air we breathe.” It is hoped that a system and culture where DEI is uniformly reflected in all organizational and individual activities in the domains of education, research, and service in universities will be established based on the findings and suggestions of this study.

 

*Disclaimer

This is an executive summary of the research paper "Kim K., Jo S., Jang H., Yang S., & Shin H. (2023). Evaluation on Diversity Organizations in South Korean Universities Using the CIPP Model: A Comparative Study with the State University of New York". Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 33(6), 145-187. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20306/kces.2023.12.31.145