Case on Qualification for Admission to Ewha Law School

[25-1 KCCR 337, 2009Hun-Ma514, May 30, 2013]

A. Background of the Case

In this case, the Court decided that the part of the entrance examination plan that the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the "Minister of Education") authorized for the establishment of the Law School of Ewha Haktang Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Ewha Haktang“), which specifies that only women are qualified for admission, does not infringe on the fundamental rights of men who have been preparing for admission to law schools.

In authorizing Ewha Haktang to establish a law school, the Minister of Education recognized the part of the entrance examination plan submitted by Ewha Haktang that specifies that only women are qualified for admission (hereinafter referred to as "Disposition of Authorization"), and Ewha Haktang determined that only women would be qualified for admission when it announced the law school admission guidelines for the school year of 2010. Thereupon, a male complainant who was preparing to enter a law school filed a constitutional complaint against the Disposition of Authorization.

B. Summary of the Decision

The Constitutional Court ruled that the Disposition of Authorization did not infringe on the complainant’s freedom of occupational choice, for the following reasons.

Regarding the justiciability requirements, the court's opinion admitted self-relevance for reasons that, although the Disposition of Authorization is for Ewha Haktang and not for the complainant, unlike general universities, law schools adopted a principle on maintaining a fixed number of total students, which means that granting authorization to establish a law school in a women's university where only women can attend ultimately reduces the fixed number of students of law schools which men can attend.

Justices Lee Jin-Sung and Cho Yong-Ho held that they could not admit self-relevance, because the disadvantage that the complainant suffers is merely a virtual one, since the Disposition of Authorization neither regards the complainant as a direct counterpart, nor has the male complainant’s opportunity to enter a law school been blocked due to the Disposition of Authorization.

Regarding the merits of this case, the Constitutional Court ruled that the complainant’s freedom of occupational choice had not been infringed upon on the grounds that, in view of the identity of Ewha Women's University, which is a higher educational institution for women, whether or not to maintain the policy of a women's university belongs to the essential part of the university's autonomy, and the disadvantage to the male complainant caused by the Disposition of Authorization is not significant, because the complainant has sufficient possibility to enter a law school by applying for admission to as many as 24 other law schools nationwide, which will be attended by a total fixed number of 1,900 students.

C. Significance of the Decision

It is particularly noteworthy that the Constitutional Court did not regard this case as an issue of reverse discrimination against men or as an issue concerning measures to proactively realize equality for women, but approached it from the perspective of the complainant’s freedom of occupational choice.