Court Rules "'Professor's Dismissal for Poor Preparation of COVID-19 Remote Classes' Is Justified"

A professor who was dismissed for inadequately preparing for COVID-19 remote lectures filed an appeal lawsuit against the university but lost in the first trial. The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A court ruling has upheld the dismissal of a professor who inadequately prepared for remote classes due to COVID-19.

On the 16th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 13 (Presiding Judge Park Jeongdae) announced that it ruled against Associate Professor A from a university in Busan in the first trial of the cancellation lawsuit against the school's dismissal decision.

Previously, Professor A taught three engineering-related major courses in the first semester of 2020. At that time, classes were conducted remotely due to COVID-19. Subsequently, the student council filed a complaint with the school, stating that Professor A did not upload class materials on time and that the content was inadequate.

During the fact-finding investigation by the school's investigation committee regarding the complaint, it was also confirmed that Professor A had been issued a business registration certificate since 2014 and worked as the representative of an external liquor business. This was a profit-making activity conducted without the school's permission for concurrent employment.

The school dismissed Professor A for violating the duty of diligence and the prohibition on concurrent employment, and Professor A filed an administrative lawsuit in opposition.

During the trial, Professor A admitted, "I acknowledge that the sudden shift to remote classes caused inconvenience to students," but argued, "Judging that the teaching methods or materials formed through long experience and research are wrong is an infringement of academic freedom." He also stated, "The teaching materials were created over many years through departmental courses and are appropriate for understanding the lessons."

Regarding the profit-making activity, he countered, "I received verbal permission for concurrent employment from a former president," and added, "Professors' startups help create jobs for students and contribute to the qualitative growth of the department through industry-academia cooperation, so the school encouraged professors' startups."

However, the first trial court did not accept Professor A's claims. The court stated, "The content of the teaching materials was not sufficiently explained through the syllabus and video lectures, making it difficult for students to understand the content," and said, "The plaintiff uploaded teaching materials online without reflecting the suggestions received from student complaints."

Furthermore, the court pointed out, "Due to the unprecedented disaster situation caused by COVID-19, university students' right to learn through face-to-face classes was significantly restricted," and "Providing thorough teaching materials and video lectures is the minimum measure to prevent infringement of enrolled students' learning rights."

The court also explained, "The business operated in violation of the prohibition on concurrent employment does not appear to be closely related to the professor's duties, and the operation period and profits are considerable," adding, "Such profit-making activities seem to have adversely affected the professor's educational and research activities."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.