Hanshin University's 'tail-cutting' controversy grows over forced deportation report

Hanshin University's foundation is embroiled in controversy over its handling of a forced deportation case involving Uzbek students. Critics accuse the foundation of attempting to cover up the incident by removing the conclusion from an investigation report and limiting disciplinary action to only three indicted school officials.

The foundation's board reportedly reviewed the investigation report on the forced deportation of Uzbek students but deleted the concluding section. They then decided to pursue disciplinary measures only against the three individuals criminally charged in connection with the incident. This decision, passed unanimously by the board, has fueled accusations of a 'tail-cutting' strategy, where lower-level personnel are punished to shield higher-ranking officials.

Concerns were raised that the board's decision to exclude the report's conclusion, which reportedly called for disciplinary action against those in charge, including the university president, was due to opposition from some board members. This move is seen by some as an attempt to close the case by punishing only the indicted officials and absolving those who gave the orders.

Since the investigation phase, questions have persisted about the scope of responsibility for the forced deportation. In February, prosecutors indicted three school officials, including staff from Hanshin University's international exchange department, on charges of kidnapping for expatriation, special confinement, and special coercion. They are accused of forcibly deporting 22 Uzbek students in November 2023.

Joint statements from various religious and civic groups have condemned the foundation's approach. They argue that punishing only the three indicted individuals is equivalent to granting immunity to those who issued the orders and attempting to bury the truth. These groups are demanding the full disclosure of the investigation report and stringent disciplinary actions against all involved parties.

“

Punishing only the three indicted individuals is equivalent to granting immunity to those who issued the orders and attempting to bury the truth.