South Korean court upholds ruling against student's indefinite suspension for LGBTQ+ group membership

A South Korean university's indefinite suspension of a student for joining a LGBTQ+ rights group has been overturned by a court for the second time. The student, who was set to graduate, was disciplined for his membership in an on-campus LGBTQ+ rights group, alongside other sanctions like special guidance.

“

The indefinite suspension was excessive.

Chongshin University's disciplinary code prohibits actions contrary to Christian virtues, including supporting homosexuality. The university cited the student's membership and support for LGBTQ+ groups as grounds for the suspension. The student challenged the disciplinary action, arguing the university's rules infringed upon his fundamental rights, including freedom of conscience, religion, expression, association, and academic freedom. He also contended that the punishment itself was an excessive abuse of discretion.

The first court acknowledged the disciplinary grounds but deemed the indefinite suspension overly harsh and invalid. The court recognized Chongshin University's identity as a theological seminary rooted in Christian faith, with a conservative stance on homosexuality. It also noted the student's status as a theology student and a baptized Christian, aware of the university's traditional views.

“

There is no evidence that A actively harmed Chongshin University or its denomination.

However, the court found the indefinite suspension to be "manifestly lacking in reasonableness" and an abuse of power. It stated there was no evidence the student actively harmed the university or its denomination, and acknowledged evolving interpretations of homosexuality within Christianity. The court concluded that joining the group out of intellectual curiosity did not warrant an indefinite suspension.

“

It is difficult to consider joining the group to resolve intellectual curiosity about theology as a reason for indefinite suspension.

The second trial upheld this decision. Chongshin University argued that the severity of the act and the student's remorse were key disciplinary factors. The appellate court rejected this, stating that forcing a student to demonstrate remorse for their ethical judgments could infringe upon freedom of conscience. The court also highlighted that the student faced significant disadvantages to his graduation and future employment, while not posing a threat to the university's order, suggesting a less severe punishment would have sufficed.

“

If remorse is used as a criterion for disciplinary action, it could be seen as an infringement on freedom of conscience, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.