Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program
Page 9
Approximately two-thirds of American applicants make it through the initial screening and move on to the interview stage.37 In 1992 1 had the opportunity to serve on the interview committee at the Boston consulate and thus experienced the selection process firsthand. After coffee and introductions, we were divided into three teams of four members and given a brief refresher course on scoring procedures and criteria. A list of sample questions was handed out, as was a summary of past cases in which the interview committee had clearly erred by endorsing an applicant who later encountered serious difficulties in Japan. Over the course of three days, each interview team conducted approximately twenty interviews, each lasting twenty minutes. At the end of the day we pooled our scoresheets and divided interviewees into three categories: definitely recommended, recommended with reservations, and not recommended.
If an applicant makes it to the interview stage, personal qualities become the dominant criteria for selection. The packet of information we were given instructed us as follows: "To be considered for recommendation, applicants must meet certain basic conditions. They must be outgoing, wellmannered and have a sunny disposition. A nervous temperament is not desirable." The evaluation form was then divided into six categories for a full score of 120 points as follows:
a. Personality (40 points-same in both CIR and ALT)
Consider flexibility, strength of personality, ability to adapt to foreign cultures, etc.
b. Ability (20 points-same in both CIR and ALT)
Consider self-expression, creativity, general knowledge.
c. Motivation (CIR-2o points, ALT-25 points)
Consider desire to participate in JET Program, sense of purpose, interest in Japan.
d. English ability (io points-same in both CIR and ALT)
Clear pronunciation, proper word use, etc.
e. Japanese ability (CIR-io points, ALT-5 points)
Applicants for the CIR position must have a functional ability in Japanese, an ability not only to speak and understand well but ideally to read and write as well. For applicants for the ALT position, evaluate conversation and reading ability.
f. Overall impression (20 points-same in both CIR and ALT)
Please recommend those applicants who seem sociable, stable and can adjust well to new situations.
While the JET Program as a whole has been well received in the United States by Japan scholars in all disciplines (after all, it provides a wonderful opportunity for one's own students to live and work in Japan), the tendency to emphasize youth and personality in the selection of participants has not gone uncriticized. What struck me about the way the interviews were set up was not only the preoccupation with social fit and social type but also the relatively short time we were given to make difficult assessments about character-integrity, adaptability, openness to learning, genuine interest in children.38 One professor on the selection committee at the University of Washington told me that she was fed up with the whole process: "All they do is choose people who are cute and cheery instead of those with teaching experience or sustained interest in Japan." Cliff Clarke, who coordinated the selection of participants for CIEE under the old MEF Program, was especially critical of how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs handled the selection process after taking over from CIEE:
In the early years of the MEF Program, they only wanted single males under the age of twenty-six, and no one but Caucasians. We fought all of these one at a time because of lawsuits against CIEE. Also, there was no predeparture training at first, and they didn't want people to come knowing the Japanese language. The Japanese side was hoping for complete novices. But after a 5 to 6 percent failure rate, we convinced them that we needed a more thorough selection and orientation process. By 1986 we had the selection process so fine-tuned that we could spot the right American for the program in 30 seconds. Now [with the start-up of JET] they've gone right back to square one. Gaimusho has refused help from Mombusho, and they've created an application form that asks for age, race, sex, marital status, the whole works.39
WHO ARE THE JET PARTICIPANTS?
In spite of the initial administrative delays and the criticism of some selection committee members, the JET Program in its inaugural year attracted considerable interest in all four participating countries. As table 2 shows, for ALTs the percentage of successful applicants in 1987 was below 3o percent in both the United States and the United Kingdom, and below 1o percent in Australia. In 1988 the percentage of successful applicants rose considerably in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, in part because of the increase in the numbers of new participants; but it was still low for the two newcomers, Canada and Ireland.
A closer examination of the characteristics of participants chosen in 1987 reveals a number of interesting points. The large majority (93 percent) were single, and there was a slightly higher percentage of females (56.5 percent) than males (43.5 percent). The age of participants during the first year of the program ranged from twenty-two to forty-three, with an average age of twenty-five. Among ALTS, 35.6 percent of JET participants indicated they had formal teaching experience, but it is hard to know what this means since "teaching experience" was not defined. While 46.8 percent indicated they had some Japanese language skills, this initial information was quite misleading because JET participants were only given two options from which to choose ("some skills" or "no skills"). Yet even with this crude distinction, striking differences between countries emerged. While 6o to 8o percent of Australian and New Zealand participants indicated they had some Japanese language ability, only 15 percent of British participants did, a reflection of the relative lack of Japanese language programs in British high schools and universities.40
Later a more sophisticated attempt was made to categorize the characteristics of JET participants (see table 3). A five-tiered scale of language ability was introduced, and the results indicate that on the whole, the JET participants are not very conversant in Japanese prior to arriving in Japan. Thus in i99i fully 85 percent of new ALTs indicated that they could speak no Japanese whatsoever or that they had trouble with daily conversation. Only 1.3 percent said they could speak Japanese well enough to manage their work duties.41 The same survey also revealed that 93.8 percent of ALTs came to Japan with a bachelor's degree, while 6.-i percent came with a master's. Just under 12 percent of ALTS had received some kind of TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) certification.
Ministry officials told me that they kept no statistics on the ethnic and racial background of JET participants, and thus their observations are speculative. They noted that requiring a B.A. or B.S. degree for participation in the program was bound to skew the demographics of participants, as low-income and nonwhite youth are underrepresented in the population of college graduates in each of the participating countries. The 1987-88 JET Participant Directory (which includes both names and pictures) revealed that JETs of African descent comprised roughly 1.5 percent (io of 683) of the participants pictured.41 Judging from surnames, JETs of Japanese descent comprised 5 percent (45 of 848) of JET participants. It would seem that the former tended to be underrepresented, while the latter fared very well. There were few Hispanic participants, and no participants from indigenous groups such as Native Americans, Maori, or Australian Aborigines.
Motivation: Japan Meets Generation X
The motivations of current JET participants differ qualitatively from those of the young people, including myself, who came to Japan in the 1970s. Then we were more often than not lured by the image of the "exotic"-the tea ceremony, Zen, martial arts, and Kabuki. The yen for Japan among today's JET participants, however, is more likely to involve the other kind of yen. Amply aware of Japan's economic success, some hope to cash in on their Japan experience by working in international business. Almost all participants (especially those who are saddled with student loans) find the JET Program salary attractive.
Although JET participants represent a fairly narrow social slice, they have a wide range
of motivations for entering the program. Approximately 25 percent of those whom I interviewed did draw some connection between Japan's economic rise, their participation in the JET Program, and a future payoff. In some cases they were quite specific. For instance, one twentytwo-year-old American noted, "I really want to go to business school and work in international business, and if this is the case, my study of Japanese and government should be useful." Others had only a vague notion that exposure to the Japanese economic miracle would pay off in the future. The comments of a twenty-four-year-old British participant demonstrate just how powerful Japan's economic position was perceived to be in the late i98os: "I wanted to travel east after finals, and I caught sight of this at the career programs office. It seemed prestigious since it was run by the Japanese government. I thought if I could learn Japanese it would be beneficial to my career since Japan will lead the world in the next century."
Roughly 20 percent of the participants I interviewed mentioned some personal or family connection as the key force behind their interest in the JET Program. This was overwhelmingly true for Japanese Americans. A second-generation Japanese American recalled: "My father brought his chef skills to the States where he is self-employed, and my mother imparted my love of Japanese language and culture to me." By contrast, a fourth-generation Japanese American confessed that there was not much of Japan left in her household other than her mother cooking rice with hamburgers, but she still wanted to seek an understanding of Japanese culture in a way a tourist would not. Other participants had personal connections as well, ranging from a formative childhood experience such as studying the violin under the Suzuki method to the curiosity aroused by having a neighbor who was Japanese.
Another 15 percent expressed an academic interest in Japan. Many in this group had studied Japanese language, culture, or history in college, perhaps even venturing to Japan on an undergraduate exchange program. Thirteen percent of the participants I interviewed had a deep interest in teaching and ESL or had some experience in these fields. A roughly equal number said their motivation to travel to Japan was simply a desire to see a different part of the world. As one participant noted, "I had lived in Russia and the explorer side of me wanted to see a new place and experience a different lifestyle." In the same vein, another explained: "Japan was always a country I wanted to visit because of its combination of Eastern and Western influences. I was intrigued by diversity in the human race and wanted knowledge of a setting different from home." Finally, 9 percent of my interviewees mentioned their fascination with traditional Japanese culture. For many in this group, the martial arts, particularly membership in university aikido clubs, proved to be the impetus.43
At one end of the continuum, then, are those who come with what their Japanese hosts disparagingly referred to as a superficial interest (karui kimochi). Possessing a tourist mentality, they are perfectly content to operate in English for the duration of their stay and tend to become very cynical about the JET Program and Japanese education. At the other end are those who practically reject their own cultural background in the rush to embrace Japanese culture. Intent on going native, they may eschew interaction with other foreigners, preferring instead to cultivate an all-Japanese social network. Usually their initial idealism becomes tempered over time, but they still retain a critical stance toward their compatriots. The majority of JET participants fall somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. They view the JET Program as a chance to see the world and perhaps to take time off from school before making decisions about career plans, all the while harboring a vague expectation that the experience may prove valuable later down the line.
THE JET PROGRAM AS A il MEGAPOLICY"
Several themes are worth highlighting in the story of the origins of the JET Program, for they continue to influence its implementation. First, there were important antecedents for the idea itself. The Ministry of Home Affairs was embarking on a serious attempt to improve its overseas connections, prompted by the pace at which independent ties at local levels were proliferating; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was committed to cultural exchange as a foreign policy strategy for providing a human face to counter the negative stereotypes of Japan circulating abroad; and the Ministry of Education, which already was administering two smaller English education programs, had committed itself (at least in principle) to improving foreign language education and intercultural educational exchanges. Holding these diverse threads together was a public discourse surrounding internationalization that stressed the need for Japan to emerge from cultural isolation and assimilate a new set of values. The JET Program thus was not just window dressing, as some critics have charged, but an attempt to integrate a relatively insular and homogeneous population with a global society made increasingly important to Japan by its own economic progress.
There is a sense, however, in which the JET Program can best be categorized as a "reactive" policy. Without Nakasone's deep interest in foreign affairs and the catalysts of U.S.-Japan trade friction and the Maekawa Report, it is doubtful that the JET Program would have ever materialized in its present form. It was generated largely by pressure from the outside: its goal was to demonstrate Japan's commonality with other countries in order to protect what Nakasone himself described as Japan's "vulnerable security system and international economic encirclement."` Consequently, there were people in each of the sponsoring ministries who were not thrilled by its announcement, and I was continually struck by how frequently the passive voice and the phrases "have to" and "must" (shi- nakereba naranai koto) were used when Ministry of Home Affairs and local officials explained the origins of the program.41
It is also important to stress that the JET Program involves three government ministries, identifying and targeting a problem that cannot be solved through ordinary sectoral policies. Insofar as the program transcends sectoral boundaries, creates new institutional structures and patterns of interaction, and requires new forms of behavior, it can be categorized with those innovative approaches that have been termed "megapolicies."`'6 Yet intersectoral policies cannot just supersede existing policies. They must always be adapted to conflicting sectoral policy goals.
In addition, the three sponsoring ministries were not equal partners. The Ministry of Home Affairs took firm control of the budget and overall coordination of the program. Because diplomatic relations and strengthening Japan's role and image in the world often receive high priority in policy formation at the national level, the voice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also strong. Indeed, it was the growing realization that preparation for world citizenship as conceived by the Ministry of Education did not accommodate Japan's new global needs that provided much of the initial impetus for the JET Program-and that ministry was clearly placed on the defensive by its adoption.
In spite of conflict and compartmentalization, the refusal of any ministry ultimately to undermine the policy speaks to the power of the concept of internationalization itself. For the politicians and bureaucrats concerned, pressured as they were by outside forces, proclaiming the existence of the JET Program was at least as important as the details of the policy's execution-not because they were hypocritical but because they realized the substantial symbolic significance of political actions. Wada Minoru himself confessed, "Since we have proclaimed the high ideals of internationalization, at the very least we must go through the motions of accommodating those ideals. But," he added, "and I'm sure I'll be criticized for saying this, I don't think Japan will change that much. We're not going to become like other countries."47
Dozens of flights converged on Narita Airport on 31 July 1987 carrying hundreds of Japan Exchange and Teaching Program participants, many of whom had flown business class.' Private buses whisked the new arrivals to the luxurious Keio Plaza Inter-Continental Hotel, where they were greeted, in the glare of the media spotlight, by the ministers of foreign affairs, education, and home affairs and the governor of Hyogo Prefecture.' Following the official introductions, all the JET participa
nts, as well as a host of current and former Japanese officials connected with the program, were treated to a gourmet dinner reception. The beer flowed nonstop, and an elegant buffet was served by kimono-clad hostesses.
The Japanese speakers, by and large, expressed their expectation that the participants were to be "cultural ambassadors," indeed reformers of Japanese society. One noted, "It is my honest wish that through mixing with local people you will play your part as a stone in protecting the castle of peace." Another told the group, "You are participating in this great experiment. The process of internationalization is here to stay, and that is why you will be welcomed all over the country.... The understanding you can bring is so vitally needed in this turbulent world of today." Over the next four days of workshops on the nuts and bolts of teaching a foreign language or working in government offices, the theme of change was constantly in the air and a spirit of goodwill dominated.
But by the end of August, when the JET participants had finally settled in local schools and communities, the positive atmosphere had begun to dissipate. For assistant language teachers (ALTs), life in Japanese secondary schools seemed focused on preparing for entrance exams to the neglect of spoken English. Some coordinators for international relations (CIRs) arrived in prefectural offices to find that the "coordinator" part of their title was something of a misnomer: their employers had little clue as to what they might do other than translate documents and teach English to prefectural employees. Prefectural conditions of employment varied greatly, and school visitation schedules seemed to promote superficiality. Negative reports about the JET Program began to surface in the national media, and questions were raised about the commitment of CLAIR and of the Ministry of Education to racial and gender equality and about the capacity of bureaucrats to provide the human touch. The first few years of the program were thus marked by numerous problems and misunderstandings as the reform-minded participants, most of whom spoke no Japanese and had little understanding of Japanese culture, vented their frustrations to anyone who would listen.